Regents of the University of California (PERB 2185H)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Employer,
and
COALITION OF UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES,
Exclusive Representative.
Case Nos. SF-UM-620-H
SF-UM-621-H
PERB Decision No. 2185-H
June 9, 2011
Appearances: Hanson Bridgett LLP by Molly A. Lee, Attorney, for Regents of the University
of California; Beeson, Tayer & Bodine by Peter McEntee, Attorney, for Coalition of
University Employees.
Before McKeag, Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin, Members.
DECISION
McKEAG, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the Coalition of University Employees (CUE) to a proposed
decision (attached) by an administrative law judge (ALJ) regarding a petition for unit
modification filed by the Regents of the University of California (University) and a subsequent
petition for unit modification filed by CUE in response to the University's petition.
The University's petition alleges that CUE opposes the University's proposal to remove
certain positions from the systemwide clerical and allied services bargaining unit (CX Unit)
through the process of reclassification and requests the dispute be resolved under PERB
Regulation 32781 (b )(3). 1 The petition asserts that the duties performed by the incumbents in
1 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.

the disputed positions have evolved over time such that the majority of the work in each
position no longer constitutes bargaining unit work.
CUE's petition, on the other hand, concerns the same positions addressed in the
University's petition, but requests the dispute be resolved under PERB
Regulation 32781 (b )(2). CUE asserts the CX Unit should be clarified or modified to establish
that the duties performed by the incumbents in the disputed positions is appropriately assigned
to a classification within the unit, namely, the "_ Assistant IV" position.2
The ALJ concluded all fourteen positions at issue were properly reclassified to
positions outside of the CX Unit. Consequently, the ALJ granted the University's petition and
denied CUE's petition. CUE argues on appeal that the ALJ erred by failing to apply the proper
presumptions and appropriate community of interest factors in his analysis.
We have reviewed the entire record and find the proposed decision was well-reasoned,
adequately supported by the record and in accordance with applicable law. Accordingly, we
hereby adopt the proposed decision as a decision of the Board itself, subject to the following
discussion addressing several issues raised on appeal. 3
The classification known as the" 	Assistant" (spoken as "blank assistant") was used
by the University for miscellaneous clerical positions. The "blank" signifies a placeholder into
which the campuses insert an adjective denoting a more specialized function (e.g., payroll
assistant, purchasing assistant, business assistant, human resources assistant).
3 CUE requested oral argument 	this matter. Historically, the Board has denied
requests for oral argument when an adequate record has been prepared, the parties had ample
opportunity to present briefs and have availed themselves of that opportunity, and the issues
before the Board are sufficiently clear to make oral argument unnecessary. (United Teachers
of Los Angeles (Valadez, et al.) (2001) PERB Decision No. 1453; Monterey County Office of
Education (1991) PERB Decision No. 913.) Based on our review of the record, ail of the
above criteria are met in this case. Accordingly, CUE's request for oral argument is denied.
2

DISCUSSION
A. 	This Case Is Properly Resolved Under PERB Regulation 32781(b)(3)
In light of the petitions filed by the University and CUE, the threshold issue in this case
is whether the parties' unit modification petitions were properly resolved under PERB
Regulation 3278l(b)(2) (clarification of unit description) or PERB Regulation 32781(b)(3)
(resolution of dispute regarding unit placement). The ALJ found the issue in this case was
whether the positions, as revised, justify the University's attempt to exclude them from the
CX Unit. According to the ALJ, this case, unlike a case in which the employer merely retitles
a position without any presumed change in job duties, implicates reclassifications based on
changes in duties or the composition of duties. Consequently, the ALJ concluded the case was
properly resolved under PERB Regulation 32781(b)(3).
Based on this finding, the ALJ rejected CUE's assertion that the current unit
assignment of the positions in question is presumptively valid because they are currently in the
CX unit. Consequently, rather than applying the presumption, the ALJ focused on whether the
positions were subject to exclusion from the CX unit based on the relevant community of
interest factors.
In its appeal, CUE argues the ALJ erred by failing to apply its requested presumption.
In support of its claim, CUE cites State of California (Department of Personnel
Administration) (1990) PERB Decision No. 794-S (State of California) for the proposition that
the existing unit placement is appropriate. However, the State of California case, unlike the
current case, involved a situation 	which there was no change in the job duties of the
positions. Consequently, we find the State of California case oflimited probative value. Here,
since the duties performed by the individual employees have changed over time, it is
3

appropriate to consider whether these changed duties support the proposed reclassification.
Accordingly, we agree with the ALJ that this case is properly governed by PERB
Regulation 32781(b)(3) and find the ALJ's analysis
of
the community
of
interest factors
appropriate under the facts
of
this case.
B.	
The Record Does Not Support A Finding
Of
Retaliation Against The University
It should be noted that CUE, in its appeal, argues that "the heart
of
this dispute is the
University's inappropriate use
of
the reclassification process and related mechanisms to reduce
the numbers and strength"
of
the CX Unit. We disagree with this assessment. There is nothing
in the record to suggest that the University proposed the reclassifications for the purpose
of
weakening or otherwise compromising CUE or for the purpose
of
retaliating or discriminating
against CUE. Instead, the University's actions reflect an adjustment to the classifications at
issue in recognition
of
the additional duties and responsibilities assumed over time by the
incumbents in those positions. The fact that those incumbents are offered promotional
opportunities outside th~ CX Unit does not, under the facts
of
this case, constitute unlawful
discrimination.
C. 	The Professional Employee Presumption Was Adequately Rebutted
CUE.also argues on appeal that since the positions in question are "not professional",
the ALJ erred by failing to apply a rebuttable presumption that the employees should not be
placed in the administrative professionals unit. Section 3579(b) of the Higher Education
Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA)4 provides that:
There shall be a presumption that professional employees and
nonprofessional employees shall not be included in the same
representation unit. However, the presumption shall be
4 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq.
4

rebuttable, depending upon what the evidence pertinent to the
criteria set forth in subdivision (a) estabiishes.
Based on the plain language of this section, the presumption can be rebutted by
examining the community of interest factors set forth in HEERA section 3579(a). Here, the
ALJ conducted a thorough community of interest analysis for each of the positions in question
and correctly found the positions were properly reclassified as non-CX Unit positions.
Consequently, even if the presumption was warranted, we find the University presented
sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. Thus, this exception lacks merit and does not
warrant reversal of the proposed decision.
D. 	The University's Utilization Of_ Assistant IV Positions At One Campus Was Not
Determinative In This Case
Last, CUE argues that the ALJ erred by failing to take into consideration the breadth of
duties performed by the_ Assistant IV position currently utilized at UC Davis. The
_ 	Assistant IV position, however, is not incorporated within the systemwide series concept
and is not in use at campuses where the proposed reclassifications exist. In essence, CUE is
arguing that UC should have performed a systemwide addition of the _ 	Assistant IV position
to the CX Unit and reclassified the positions in question to_ Assistant IV positions.
We find, however, the ALJ correctly concluded that the decision as to whether the
Assistant IV position is a more appropriate classification for the work of the incumbent
described was beyond the scope of this hearing. Instead, the proper inquiry is simply whether
the majority of the work in each position is clerical bargaining unit work or not, as determined
by the parties' memorandum of understanding language establishing PERB as the dispute
arbiter. Thus, CUE's attempt to compel the University to create a new systemwide position is
5

6
not warranted under the facts of this case. Since each of the positions qualifies to serve in a
position outside the CX Unit, we find this exception lacks merit and does not warrant reversal
of the proposed decision.
E. 	All 14 Positions Are Properly Reclassified In Positions Outside The CX Unit
The proposed decision consists of a detailed analysis of the duties performed by the
incumbents in each position, followed by a thorough community of interest analysis. The
Board has reviewed the ALJ' s analysis of the community of interest factors with respect to
each position and finds the analysis well-reasoned and adequately supported by the record.
Accordingly, we agree with the ALJ that all 14 positions at issue are properly reclassified in
positions outside the CX Unit.
ORDER
The petition of the Regents of the University of California in Case No. SF-UM-620-H
is GRANTED with respect to the positions at issue and the petition of Coalition of University
Employees in Case No. SF-UM-621-H is DENIED.
Members Dowdin Calvillo and Huguenin joined in this Decision.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Employer,
and
COALITION OF UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES,
Exclusive Representative.
REPRESENTATION
CASE NOS. SF-UM-620-H and
SF-UM-621-H
PROPOSED DECISION
(March 19, 2009)
Appearances: Hanson Bridgett LLP, by M. D. Moye and Molly A. Lee, Attorneys, for Regents
of the University of California; Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, APC, by Jason Rabinowitz and Peter
McEntee, Attorneys, for Coalition of University Employees.
Before Donn Ginoza, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 6, 2004, the Regents of the University of California (University) filed a
unit modification petition under the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act
(HEERA or Act) (Gov. Code, § 3560 et seq.). 1 The petition alleges that a dispute with
Coalition of University Employees (CUE) exists over the University's proposals to remove
positions from the clerical and allied services bargaining unit through the process of
reclassification and requests the dispute be resolved under California Code of Regulations,
title 8, section 32781(b)(3).2 The petition asserts that the incumbents' positions have evolved
1 Hereafter all statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise
indicated.
2 Unit modification petitions are governed by article 5 of the PERB Regulations. 	(Cal.
Code of Regs., tit. 8, § 32781 et seq.) Hereafter all references to PERB Regulations within
title 8 of the California Code of Regulations will be cited as "Regulation."
I

over time as a result of the assignment of new duties, such that the majority of the work in each
position no longer constitutes bargaining unit work.
On January 31, 2005, CUE filed a unit modification petition concerning the same
positions addressed in the University's petition, and others similarly situated. CUE's petition
requests the dispute be resolved under Regulation 32781 (b )(2). CUE asserts that its unit
should be clarified or modified to establish that the work of the disputed positions is
appropriately assigned to a classification within the unit, namely, the"_ assistant IV"
position.
On July 25, 2005, an informal settlement conference was held, but the matter was not
resolved.
Informal discussions between the parties led to an agreement whereby the University
would litigate 5 of 21 positions identified in its unit modification petition as well as additional
positions, without requirement for an amended petition.
Beginning on June 18, 2007 and continuing for 28 non-consecutive days through
February 28, 2008, a formal hearing was held before the undersigned. During the course of the
hearing, 14 positions were presented for determination.3
On July 14, 2008, the matter was submitted for decision following receipt of post-
hearing briefs.
The University withdrew the proposed reclassification of Elvis Aragundi at the
University of California (UC), Irvine after the hearing but prior to submission of the case. As
explained below, all the reclassifications arrive before PERB through contractual language
designating it as the arbiter of disputes of this kind in which the University replaces a "major
portion" of a bargaining unit position with a position in a classification outside the unit,
typically as a result of the reclassification of the incumbent. Similar disputed reclassifications
continue to occur, explaining the University's continuing need to amend its petition. Although
this proposed decision does not address all the disputed reclassifications at the time of hearing,
the parties have agreed to consider it with a view toward informal resolution of other positions
in dispute. Barring a global resolution, the proceedings will be reopened for litigation of
additional positions in dispute.
2

FINDINGS OF FACT
CUE is an employee organization within the meaning
of
section 3562(£)(1) and is the
exclusive representative
of
an appropriate unit
of
University employees within the meaning
of
section 3562(i). The University is a higher education employer within the meaning
of
section
3562(g).
The Clerical Unit
CUE represents the systemwide clerical and allied services unit defined in earlier PERB
unit determination hearings. (See Unit Determination for Clerical Employees
of
the University
of
California (1982) PERB Decision No. 244-H.) Similar to the determination
of
other
University bargaining units, unions filed representation petitions along with their proposals for
appropriate units. These petitions were consolidated, and an omnibus-type hearing was held in
which all parties were permitted to assert their positions with regard to appropriate units.
Hearing officers were assigned portions
of
the case and each prepared a recommended decision
for presentation to the Board. The Board either adopted the recommended decision or adopted
it with changes. In the case
of
the systemwide clerical and allied services
unit-which
the
parties have come to reference as the "CX"
unit-the
Board adopted the hearing officer's
decision with one minor revision not pertinent here.4 At the time
of
the hearing, the CX unit
included classifications such as secretary, clerk, cashier, typist, administrative assistant, key
entry operator, graphic compositor, bibliographer, library assistant, messenger, dispatcher,
communication attendant (switchboard operator), biller, rater, survey worker, computing
coordinator and admitting worker. American Federation
of
State, County and Municipal
4 The Board adopted the hearing officer's recommended decision but did not republish
it. Reference to both the clerical unit and professional unit recommended decisions (entered in
the record as exhibits) is made nevertheless to illuminate the Board's decision in terms of how
the clerical unit is defined, especially vis-a-vis other units into which the University seeks to
reclassify the positions here.
3

Employees (AFSCME) became the first exclusive representative of the CX unit. It was
replaced by CUE following a decertification election in 1997.
In the recommended decision proposing the clerical unit, the hearing officer found the
following:
Clerical employees either work with several other employees of
the same classification series under supervision of another
employee in their class series, or individually, under the
supervision of a professional employee. They are distinguished
from service employees by their lack of frequent physical labor
and by their office work environment. They are distinguished
from technical employees by the routine nature of their work and
the lack of specialized technical training.
These employees generally work in an office environment
utilizing common office equipment, no matter what their
department. 	[Footnote omitted.]
All clerical employees are required to have a 12th grade
education. 	[Footnote omitted.] 	Some classifications additionally
require prior experience in clerical work, and occasionally
specialized knowledge of advanced clerical, analytical or
technical skills. Legal secretaries ... for example, are required
to have some knowledge of legal terminology. 	[Footnote
omitted.] 	(However, unlike technical employees, clerical
employees exercise little or no independent judgment in applying
this specialized knowledge.)
The hearing officer noted that employees in the CX unit performed similar work to that of a
clerical unit found appropriate for a community college district under the Educational
Employment Relations Act(§ 3540 et seq.). He described the work of that unit as follows:
Positions in this negotiating unit primarily involve the
performance of clerical tasks of a relatively routine and less
complex nature and which do not require the frequent exercise of
independent judgment or entail major administrative
responsibility. Incumbents in the office-clerical classifications
do not regularly or primarily interact with students in connection
with the educational program of the college.
The nature of clerical work has changed since the time of the original unit
determination due in large part to technological advances which allow the University to
4

achieve economies in labor, particularly in areas where information is processed on paper. 	The
record in this case, as well as common knowledge, indicate that the advent of computer
networks and desktop computers, voice-mail, automated spreadsheets, and the like has
permitted a reduction in the number-or at least variety-of employees tasked with clerical
functions. 	In response to both the technological change and a series of recent general fund
reductions, the University has undergone departmental restructuring, resulting in downsizing
and consolidation of positions as well as decentralization of certain business functions heavily
dependent on clerical work. At the same time, existing clerical positions have themselves
become broader in scope.5 It would be fair to say that technology has had a hand in facilitating
this "multi-tasking." When CUE became the unit's exclusive representative in 1997 there were
over 18,000 employees in the unit, rising to 18,484 in 2000, based on "jurisdictional" database
information provided to CUE by the University. As of 2007, the number had fallen to 14,766.
The parties draw divergent conclusions from this trend however. CUE cites these
developments as the basis for a higher level of responsibility being assigned to clerical
employees today, which in turn informs the current view of clerical work and sustains the
unit's hold on it. The University believes these changes ultimately have little bearing on the
original unit definitions and that the technological changes are irrelevant to whether the work
of the incumbents satisfies the requirements for placement outside the unit, except insofar as
they explain the University's ability to reorganize work and reduce labor costs.
The Administrative Staff Professionals Unit
At the time of the original unit determination hearings, professional employees were
examined in a hearing separate from those for clerical employees. The resulting recommended
5 In the 1990' s, the University notified AFSCME of a proposal to phase out a number
of job classifications and consolidate 45 clerical-related titles into a total of 8. Some of the
eliminated job titles included senior clerk, clerk typist, cashier, secretary I, and messenger.
5

units included all professional classifications, not just those formally petitioned for by
employee organizations. Professional employees under consideration included academic
professionals, staff professionals, and health care professionals. After recommending that
health care professionals, librarians, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
professionals be assigned separate units, PERB's hearing officer examined non-Senate
academic and administrative staff professionals as a group. Based in part on the University's
separate treatment
of
these two groups under its personnel policies, budgets, and grievance
procedures, the hearing officer recommended that administrative staff professionals be
assigned their own unit. Pertinent to this case, the hearing officer noted that the petitions for
professional and nonprofessional employees were separated following the general hearing that
provided an overview
of
the structure and operations
of
the University. Issues involving
whether classifications are professional or nonprofessional were not addressed in the hearing
officer's decision, except for the cryptic statement that "those classes found to be professional
have been placed in appropriate units."6 Though the parties did not present testimony at the
time regarding the qualifications and duties
of
each job description in terms
of
education,
training, qualifications and duties, such specifications were presented through the University's
existing staff personnel policy. Among the positions placed in the administrative staff
professionals unit were analysts, student affairs officers, program representatives, publications
coordinators, and public information representatives. No employee organization has ever
obtained exclusive representative status for this unit.
The hearing officer noted that "[ a]pparently all staff professionals have been
petitioned for." He also acknowledged a procedural decision not to incorporate the records of
both the nonprofessional and professional hearings-making it potentially difficult for a party
to substantiate a proposal for a mixed unit on appeal to the Board.
6

The Technical Employees Unit
PERB's unit determination establishing the systemwide unit of technical employees
describes the positions as: "nonprofessional employees whose work involves the use of
independent judgment and the exercise of specialized skills, often gained through advanced
education or training. Technical employees are very often licensed, certified, or registered as a
requirement of employment." (Unit Determination for Technical Employees of the University
of California (1982) PERB Decision No. 241-H, p. 7.) Citing Marin Community College
District (1978) PERB Decision No. 55, at p. 8, PERB also noted:
Performance in [technical] positions entails considerable
responsibility and involves the performance of relatively complex
assignments, ... as contrasted to performance of more routine
paperwork and bookkeeping tasks performed by clerical
employees.
Contractual Provisions for Reclassification Dispute Resolution
Around 2001, CUE filed an unfair practice charge challenging what it believed to be
the University's unilateral removal of a group of University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA) employees from the bargaining unit through the reclassification process. A couple of
years later, CUE concluded there had been an erosion of the bargaining unit based on its
review of proposed reclassifications and comparisons of the old and new job descriptions,
which appeared in many cases to be identical. 7 The unfair practice charge was settled through
language in the parties' memorandum of understanding (MOU) requiring notice to CUE, a
right of review of reclassification actions, and submission of unresolved disputes to PERB.
Notice is triggered when the University intends to replace a "major portion" of the bargaining
unit position with a position in a classification outside of the unit. More or less consistent with
7 Between 1997 and 2006, the number of administrative specialists, a position created
in the early 1990's systemwide, increased from 351 to 1,076. This raised suspicions within
CUE.
7

this terminology, University compensation and classification managers agree that
reclassification of a bargaining unit position to a non-bargaining position is justified when the
"preponderance of the duties" is no longer in the unit. 8
CUE established a statewide committee to review the noticed reclassification proposals.
Its practice is to compare the old and new job descriptions, conduct additional fact gathering
when necessary, and then indicate to the University whether it approves or rejects the
reclassification. All of the positions in this case arrive in this posture, namely, where CUE has
notified the University that it does not agree with the reclassification because it believes the
retitled position remains within the unit.
The University's Classification and Compensation System
The University's classification and compensation system is coordinated by the human
resources staff in the Office of the President (UCOP) and implemented through the human
resources staff at each of the campuses. The University has established practices by which
reclassifications are proposed, analyzed and determined. The University has a bottom-up/top-
down approach, whereby classification authority has been delegated to the campus level.
Within the recent past, campuses have also been delegated the authority to develop job
standards. Under the latter authority, campuses may propose new titles to address functions
needed at their respective institutions. New titles and their job specifications are reviewed by
the UCOP staff for approval as new classifications. UCOP shares a proposal with other
campuses to determine if there is consensus to establish a classification for systemwide use. If
only the requesting campus has need for the classification, authority for its use will only be
granted to that campus. UCOP also from time to time reviews the work of a particular
8 A University witness asserted that the controlling duties may constitute less than 50
percent of the work (in terms of time) if they are higher level and represent essential expertise.
Though not agreeing specifically with that point, a CUE witness conceded there is some case-
by-case judgment involved in the determination as well.
8

classification, determines
if
is no longer needed, or needed at a particular level, and freezes
and/or abolishes it.
When a particular type
of
work lends itself to different levels
of
skill and competency,
the University has promulgated multiple classifications within a "series concept." The
classifications in the series are listed in sequential order from lowest to highest grade and
constitute a promotional ladder for employees within the series. Each level is determined by
such factors as the nature and extent
of
authority delegated, variety and complexity
of
functions performed or supervised, application
of
knowledge
of
intradepartmental or
interdepartmental functions and University policies and procedures, nature and level
of
intramural and extramural public contacts, and consequence
of
error.
When a campus department seeks to reclassify a position (either within a series or to a
different classification), documentation in support
of
the request is prepared, the substance
of
which is the employee's revised (i.e., current) job description. As a starting point, the campus
human resources analyst compares the current job description with the previous job description
to highlight differences in responsibility. An investigation usually occurs to confirm with the
manager
of
the department that the described changes have occurred. In some cases,
particularly
if
there are doubts or questions, the analyst will investigate more thoroughly,
consulting more extensively or directly auditing the work
of
the incumbent in a process
described as a "desk audit." The analyst will then determine which classification (and level
if
a series is involved) best describes the work being performed. If a classification is not in use at
one campus, but has been approved for use at another campus, there is no need to create a new
title, and the campus simply requests extension
of
the classification to that campus.
	If
the
question concerns the appropriate level within a series, the analyst will examine the written
series-concept guidelines to determine if the placement is at the appropriate level. Since
9

campuses tailor the series concepts to suit their own needs, particularly with respect to
differentiating similar positions, the campuses have developed "supplemental guidelines" for
application in addition to the more general systemwide guidelines. There are occasions when
the proposed reclassification is not well described by an existing classification but a new
classification is not proposed, in which case the classification assigned becomes something of
a "forced fit."
The Administrative Assistant and "Blank" Assistant Series
The title of administrative assistant at the time of the original unit determination was a
system wide classification within a series. It was a position performing general clerical and
administrative duties. The classification known as the"_ assistant" (spoken as "blank
assistant") was used by the University for miscellaneous clerical positions. The "blank"
signifies a placeholder into which the campuses insert an adjective denoting a more specialized
function (e.g., payroll assistant, purchasing assistant, business assistant, human resources
assistant). 	Over time, the_ assistant series became more heavily populated as the University
reduced the number of titles in use through a process of consolidation.9 Currently, the majority
of bargaining unit positions fall within this series. Most of the _ 	assistants systemwide are at
the II level. There are five levels in the series, beginning with the entry level position of clerk,
followed by senior clerk, _ 	assistant I, _ 	assistant II, and_ assistant III. Clerks and senior
clerks are being used less often by the departments. The _ 	assistant II position is considered
the journey level position where the incumbent is fully trained and works with some level of
independence.
9 The University explained this restructuring to AFSCME representatives in 1995 and
specifically noted that the _ 	assistant positions would replace certain miscellaneous assistant
positions. AFSCME saw the plan as benefiting the unit as a whole by broadening the
classifications in a manner that enhanced seniority protection. Clerk, secretary and several
administrative assistant classifications were among those eliminated.

The University's generic description
of
the work
of
the _ 	assistant series includes the
following:
Incumbents may participate in budget, grant, or contract
preparation; administer and control department expenditures;
maintain department personnel records and provide departmental
personnel services; prepare reports and maintain pertinent files
and other required records; provide non-laboratory business
services such as purchasing, inventory and stores, facilities and
space utilization; and provide general clerical as well as
secretarial assistance to department staff.
The series concept also describes as covered functions such activities as preparing bulletins
and teaching materials, scheduling classes, operating recharge services, processing admissions,
advising students, maintaining specialized files, and coordinating special programs. A
University compensation manager explained that for the office administrative positions, which
include the _ 	assistant positions, the unifying principle is that the work is transactional in
nature. Transactions involve the operational aspects
of
the University's work. And while such
work primarily involves the repetitive application
of
established procedures, judgment and
discretion is involved-particularly more so in the upper levels
of
the
series-but
it is
discretion typically limited to selecting which
of
a number
of
potentially applicable procedures
to invoke. Stated differently, the substance
of
the work does not change on a day-to-day basis,
and the application
of
judgment does not require changing the nature
of
the information
received. 	Conversely, when the incumbent is asked to analyze information or apply critical
thinking skills to that information, the University deems such work professional as opposed to
clerical.
In the fall
of
2002, the UC Davis campus requested UCOP approval of a new position
identified as a 	assistant IV. UCOP reviewed the position and consulted with other
campuses to determine if they had need for such a classification. They did not. Accordingly,
UCOP established
the_
assistant IV position as a stand-alone classification (i.e., not one
11

incorporated within the systemwide series concept). For UC Davis, the need for the new
classification was a result of what the campus viewed as a new level of multi-functional
administrative work in the business office-setting. This began with the implementation of a
new financial system, allowing payroll functions to be decentralized. Now, the_ assistant IV
fills the role of the single point of contact externally while managing purchasing, payroll,
personnel transactions, and grants administration, reporting directly to the manager of the
department or a principal investigator. The campus currently employs approximately 125 to
150 _ 	assistant IV' s. The position also facilitated the restructuring and downsizing of offices,
as the Davis campus navigated a series of general budget reductions. The other campuses
either did not have a similar position or believed it could be described within an existing
classification. 	In early bargaining between CUE and the University, CUE proposed that the
_ 	assistant IV classification be added as a systemwide position, but the University rejected
those proposals.
At the time of the unit determination hearings, an administrative assistant IV position
was assigned to the unit. That position, as originally conceived, was subsequently frozen and
phased out of use. The early series concept suggests a position which is difficult to distinguish
from the entry level positions in the administrative staff professionals unit. 10
Administrative Staff Professional Classifications and Their Attributes
Aside from the brief comment about clerical employees not exercising significant
independent judgment or having major administrative responsibility, PERB's original unit
determination decisions of the hearing officers and the Board are admittedly opaque as to
1 The_ assistant IV position description retains the administrative assistant IV's
reference to "administrative responsibility for a total program, service or unit" and independent
decisionmaking responsibility, but eliminates reference to such descriptions as analysis
"equivalent to full professional staff analysis" and performance of assignments for which
"administrative guides are frequently inadequate" or which "involve program or policy
development."
12

specific factors differentiating positions designated as professional from those in the clerical
bargaining unit, particularly those at the lower levels. Nonetheless, PERB has determined that
several classifications which the University uses to describe positions at issue here belong in
the administrative staff professionals unit. As noted above, these include analysts, student
affairs officers, program representatives, publications coordinators, and public information
representatives. And over the years, the University's classification experts have identified
general factors by which to differentiate professional and clerical positions. These are the
factors upon which the University claims to have relied as to positions at issue here. They
have been applied both as to positions for which a PERB unit determination has been made
explicitly and those for which there has not, but which have the attributes, the University
contends, are necessary for them to qualify as professional.
As noted by one of the University's human resources managers in describing the
linkage between its compensation and classification schemes, the same factors which
determine compensation levels in fulfillment of the goal of uniform pay for comparable level
work are the factors differentiating professional from non-professional work. They include
independence of judgment, nature of decisionrnaking and analysis, consequence of error,
complexity and intensity of work, level of knowledge and skills, and degree of interaction with
the public. In regard to both independent judgment and decisionmaking, the extent of reliance
on professional knowledge and independent research as well as the absence of existing
prescriptive administrative gμidelines are factors indicative of professional level work.
Independence of judgment is reflected in the necessity for influencing, explaining or engaging
in training, and thinking critically in terms of the department's or unit's programmatic goals.
Professional work is associated with the authority to make certain decisions without need of
approval, as opposed to merely making recommendations for such. Professional employees
13

typically have direct contact with management level personnel. Their communication exists at
a high level, as reflected in effort to influence, explain, or train. Clerical employees do have
discretion and make judgments in the application of policy, though such occurs within the
confines of the particular job functions and policies as to which they have already been trained.
In reviewing reclassification requests, and particularly in fulfilling the requirements of CUE' s
MOU notice provisions, the University examines at what level the majority of the work lies.
Analysts were originally conceived as being assigned work on a project basis (i.e.,
discrete assignments requiring application of judgment and some level of analysis), and hence
the substance of the work changed with each new project. That theme generally holds true
today, though it now applies to work of an ongoing nature as well. The area of contracts and
grants administration, a major activity of senior level faculty seeking extramural support for
research activities, reflects how the University envisions the reclassification of an employee
from a_ assistant III position to an analyst position within the same department even as the
employee continues to perform some of the same general duties. At the vice-chancellor's
level, contracts and grants administration analysts negotiate with funding sources like the
National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, helping establish the
parameters by which a campus receives its research funding and how principal investigators
use that funding. 	This work focuses on the "pre-award" phase of the funding process, as
opposed to the "post-award" phase. The latter work entails authorizing purchase orders and
payments to vendors and payment of salaries to staff supporting the research, as well as cost
accounting for the grant funds. 	Increasingly that work has devolved to the departmental level,
where a principal investigator with significant extramural funding may require an analyst level
position to whom he can delegate much of the pre-award work. That work involves a higher
level of independence, creativity, resourcefulness, and analytical ability. The analyst will be
14

asked to identify potential sources and determine whether the principal investigator (PI) can
successfully compete for funding and fulfill the compliance terms of the funding source.
Given a broad directive or general guidelines, the analyst will create a budget for the grant
application, which will include a determination of staffing levels, as well as space and
equipment requirements needed to complete the research project.
Illustrative of this position is the University's series concept for the administrative
analyst position adopted at the Irvine campus as a generic classification. 11 The administrative
analyst and assistant administrative analysts are the lowest level positions in the series. Theses
assignments are usually given on a project basis and may involve day-to-day administration or
decisionmaking for the unit. 12 The principal and senior analysts are the highest levels, where
the responsibility relates to the University's overall management function and encompasses
decisions and recommendations regarding new programs or affecting campus level policies and
procedures. Analysts are viewed as having more of a consultative role as opposed to
maintaining compliance with existing guidelines. The analyst positions require a baccalaureate
degree in business or education administration, or similar field, or an equivalent combination
of education and experience.
A similar distinction is drawn for professional level work in the classification of student
affairs officer (SAO). The systemwide series concept states that the SAO's plan, direct and/or
11 The campuses received authority from UCOP to revise the series concept for the
analyst positions to conform to their particular needs. In response, the Davis campus, as
contrasted with the Irvine campus, consolidated three specific classification series (public
administration analyst, administrative analyst, and budget analysts) into one series, while
maintaining a separate series for human resource analysts (due to labor market requirements
for differentiation).
12 Not all campuses currently utilize the assistant analyst position as the entry level
position. However, where that is the case, the analyst I position is considered the journey-level
position. Where the analyst I is the entry-level position, the analyst III is the journey-level
position.
15

implement campus student affairs programs and perform related duties; that they typically have
programmatic responsibility in one or more function areas such as academic progression,
admissions, outreach, financial aid, student life (residence halls or the student band), or career
development. They are distinguished from administrative analysts and management services
officers (MSO) (department managers on the administrative as opposed to academic side) by
"the work requiring judgment based on professional/and/or academic expertise, beyond the
implementation of administratively prescribed rules, policies or guidelines." The position
exercises professional judgment in developing, interpreting and monitoring University policies
and procedures (e.g., assessing a student's record to determine how it relates to degree
requirements), as opposed to the more prescriptive work of providing readily available
information, such as that contained in course catalogs (e.g., progress toward fulfilling
undergraduate or graduate degree requirements), or assisting students with forms and petitions.
SAO's typically possess a four-year degree, and often have a professional counseling
background. Regardless, they are required to draw on a wider breadth of knowledge than a
clerical employee who provides advice or counseling to students. SAO's are distinguished
from 	assistant Ill's advising undergraduate and graduate students-even those performing
work that is complex or detailed in nature-because they function within a support capacity to
the primary student services coordinator positions.
Program representatives perform a full range of implementation duties for classes and
programs offered to the general public through such programs as the University's Extension
Program, museums, and other organizations with an educational component. Incumbents are
required to fully understand the professional goals of the department; they may be required to
plan and develop individual classes and programs, but without responsibility for the long range
education policy and course content review; they may recruit and screen instructors and
16

speakers for the classes and programs. While some clerical duties may be performed, the
majority
of
the time is spent in class or program implementation, and the position exercises a
requisite level
of
judgment in the role.
Publications coordinators plan, schedule, and coordinate the production schedules for
books, publications, and other printed material; they confer with editors, designers, and project
directors, and related personnel in the preparation
of
proposed publications; they work to effect
content and design changes on behalf
of
the customers and verify that the copy conforms to
printing specifications.
Notwithstanding the expectation that professional classifications understand principles
and theories
of
a particular professional field, or have an advanced degree, the record
demonstrates anecdotally and affirmatively that it is not uncommon for clerical employees
without such formal credentials to promote into the lower level professional classifications,
such as those available in the analyst, specialist, and program representative series. To some
extent this depends on how departments structure or assign work. For example, at the Davis
campus, where upper level clericals have traditionally been assigned a full complement
of
transactional responsibility, movement into an entry level analyst position results in
specialization in one particular aspect
of
administration. The critical difference between a
professional employee and a clerical employee is that the former exercises professional
judgment in both determining the application
of
the University's policies to the issues at hand
and analyzing information gathered related to such determinations, whereas the latter is limited
to gathering the raw information or being the first point
of
contact in explaining to the outside
(i.e., students, staff, and the public) the policies and procedures that apply. A lower level
analyst, for example, might fill in for an upper level clerical assistant, but not vice versa.
17

In the University's view, the general framework for differentiation as applied to the
analyst, student affairs officer, program representative, and publications coordinator positions
has similar application with respect to other professional classifications such as administrative
specialists and public events managers, positions not specifically identified by PERB as falling
within the administrative staff professionals unit.
The administrative specialist is typically the business officer supervisor for a
department or small business unit, in charge
of
the entire range
of
administrative and student
functions. That person is the resident expert for all the transactional processing. These
individuals perform some
of
the transactional work itself, but their essential role is as the final
authority for all the administrative processes. This is similar in function to the earlier
administrative assistant IV position. The position was created in 1993 as a point-of-entry for
the MSO series. The administrative specialist position was conceived as a first-line
supervisory and business office position. The administrative specialist I, a non-supervisory
position, is limited at some campuses to use in offices
of
the deans and vice chancellors. A
portion
of
the work in such a position is clerical, as in the case
of
an executive assistant, but
the predominant role
of
the position is as an extension
of
the executive, providing research and
analysis. At other campuses, the administrative specialist I is used in an academic or business
office to perform a variety
of
professional and administrative duties in support
of
day-to-day
operations, assist in program planning and development, administer budgets, coordinate
academic and/or staff personnel matters, and interpret, monitor and analyze information
regarding operation policies and procedures. Analysts, though working independently,
conducting analysis and exercising decisionmaking like specialists, are distinguished by their
responsibility for a particular program within a department or business unit, whereas specialists
are responsible for applying a range of policies.
18

A public events manager typically has responsibility for the use, booking, promotion,
and planning of music or speaking events at large venues like halls, auditoriums and theaters.
At the lowest level position, the manager coordinates the production of established events or
those which are part of a series of productions not differing significantly during the season.
The computer resource specialist position is currently assigned to the non-patient care
technical unit represented by the University Professional and Technical Employees. Computer
resource specialists function in an administrative support capacity, providing a wide range of
technical and consultative services related to the acquisition, installation, use, and maintenance
of computer and/or network software and hardware. They are required to be knowledgeable
about new enhancements, developments, and diagnostic tools in personal computer software.
They install and maintain both hardware and software systems, primarily in desktop
applications. Situated below the professional programmer analyst, they provide technical
support in a variety of ways.
A number of the above-described positions are non-exempt for purposes of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, including administrative specialists, SAO's, computer resource
specialists, program representatives, and publications coordinators. Of these, only MS O's and
analysts are deemed exempt.
CUE's Presentation of Expert Witness Hurley
CUE's case for why the positions at issue remain within the clerical unit was presented
in two ways. First, CUE presented positions from its bargaining unit which it claims are
similar to-and indeed indistinguishable from-those at issue, in order to show that the
reclassifications are based on erroneous judgments about the level and nature of work
involved. Second, CUE presented an expert witness, Kathleen Hurley, who has held various
human resources positions with responsibility over classification analysis. Hurley attempted to
19

cast doubt on the proposed reclassifications by reviewing the University witness testimony and
the job descriptions, through the lens of the University's own guidelines on clerical positions,
principal among them being the _ 	assistant series. With respect to each of the positions in
question, she testified that the work of the revised position fell "well within" the scope of
clerical work as defined by the University's own guidelines.
The University takes vigorous exception to the admissibility of the entire body of
Hurley's testimony on grounds that she lacks competent knowledge of the University's
classification practices under HEERA (she has only worked in MMBA jurisdictions), and
exhibited bias because she concluded every disputed position was clerical while ignoring
evidence presented contradicting her position (the University's evidence that the proposed
reclassifications describe positions comparable to positions currently classified outside of the
unit).
During the hearing, I overruled the University's objection to receipt of Hurley's
testimony, and I stand by that ruling despite my prerogative to rule it inadmissible after having
heard it. As to the question of bias or interest, I note that the University's classification
analysts, by approving all the proposals in question, believe that in every case the position is
properly classified outside of the unit. Thus the bias argument cuts both ways, and the
unanimity of Hurley's opinion is not entirely unexpected. The classifications at issue here-
and likely those yet to be litigated-present close questions in many instances because they
include some portion of work which is clerical in nature. Closeness is also reflected in the fact
that the positions at issue arrive after review by CUE and omit those positions as to which no
objection was raised, notwithstanding the University's contention that CUE has recently
opposed proposed reclassifications more aggressively. Therefore I do not reject Hurley's
testimony on the ground of bias or interest.
20

Further, Hurley's relevant background in classification procedures is substantial and her
testimony on those practices plausible. I found reasonable her testimony that upward
promotion through reclassification to a higher paid position may occur for the sake
of
employee retention at the expense
of
rigorous analysis
of
the proposal. I note that desk audits,
which were not done in the cases at issue
here-and,
as an analyst for one
of
the campuses
admitted, are rarely
done-are
undoubtedly a better practice for verifying the nature
of
the
work performed in the position proposed for reclassification as argued by Hurley. I accept that
when a department manager or employee includes words like "manage" to describe particular
functions in a job description proposed for reclassification there is potential for obfuscation.
Also, I do not believe Hurley's lack
of
experience in HEERA jurisdictions to be a disqualifier
in terms
of
some
of
the points she made. Though Hurley did not have background in the
compensation and classification practices
of
the University, the University never articulated
why higher education employers are compelled to be organized differently from other public
sector employers.
That said, I agree with the University that Hurley's testimony is one-sided because it
only presented a rationale for why each position could still be described as predominantly
clerical in nature and did not rebut the University's case for comparability to similarly situated
administrative staff professional unit positions. More significantly, Hurley's primary function
was to present an opinion on the ultimate issue I am required to make in each case. For that
reason, I give no weight to that portion
of
her testimony. To the extent Hurley's testimony
presented an overarching argument for why I should avoid uncritical acceptance
of
the
University's justifications for the reclassifications, in the nature
of
a challenge to the
21

credibility of the University's review processes as a whole, I have factored those concerns into
my analysis even where not explicitly stated. 13
Peter Padilla
The division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco
(UCSF) campus provides patient care, research and teaching. The division is one of 16 units
within the school of medicine at the campus's San Francisco General Hospital site. Dr. Philip
Rosenthal is a well-funded researcher at the school of medicine, specializing in malaria and
HIV. Much of his work involves long range clinical trials in Uganda and Burkina Faso.
Rosenthal currently receives funding through multiple extramural grants, from such sources as
the National Institutes of Health, federal government and foundations. 	With this funding,
Rosenthal supports 11 employees at the hospital and 15 to 25 employees in the African
countries.
The University proposed to reclassify Peter Padilla from his administrative assistant III
position to that of a research services analyst II. Rosenthal hired Padilla in 2001. Padilla
began performing data entry and secretarial work in preparing grant applications. The latter
work was under close direction by Rosenthal, who provided Padilla with the information
required. Padilla prepared the funding proposal, submitted it for review by Rosenthal, made
the requested corrections, and finalized it for submission. Over time Padilla was assigned
greater responsibility in the area of grants administration. He attended four courses on grant
management for a total of approximately 90 hours.
13 Apart from limited testimony from University witnesses knowledgeable about the
University's classification practices in general and two specifically who had reviewed the
proposed reclassifications with a view to spotting any obvious irregularities (but finding none),
the University did not present the classification analyst in each case to explain the rationale for
the reclassification, as did CUE with Hurley for the opposite purpose.
22

Padilla is responsible for all
of
Rosenthal's laboratory needs. This function includes
purchasing equipment and arranging for payment
of
all research staff salaries. Padilla makes
travel, housing and academic course arrangements for visiting fellows arriving to participate in
Rosenthal's research projects. He manages inventories and makes recommendations on new
purchases. Many
of
the grants have subcontracts, whose invoices must be reviewed and
approved in compliance with multiple funding-source authorization guidelines. Padilla serves
as the primary contact for human resource information requests
of
Rosenthal's research staff.
He does this by consulting the human resources department. He refers the employee directly to
the department on more difficult issues. He arranges housing stipends and academic courses
for visiting researchers. Padilla oversees the expenditures on all
of
Rosenthal's grant sources,
monitoring the draw-downs so as to avoid overpayments, preparing interim reports and
forecasts, reallocating costs to other funding sources when available funds are exhausted,
ensuring that sufficient staff time is allocated to the budgeted grant allowances, and preparing
reports to funding sources justifying incurred expenditures. Post-award work comprises 35
percent
of
his time. Complexity in these activities results from issues related to the
researchers, shipments and purchases arising from the activities in the African countries.
Padilla must research issues concerning foreign employment taxes, visa requirements, bank
wire transfers for advances
of
funding, and customs regulations. 14
Aspects
of
his work in this
regard are like those
of
a project manager, and he spends more time on the Uganda project than
on administrative matters for the San Francisco research. Padilla recommends to Rosenthal
how to make purchases
of
equipment and services, and from which grants, in order to maintain
the Uganda project. Padilla is responsible for review and close-outs
of
grants, and when he
1 Padilla was required to independently research Ugandan income taxes when they
were levied for the first time, determine the percentage of withholdings, and arrange for
payment to the government. Similar investigation is required around visa procedures.
23

identifies discrepancies he must bring the matter to the attention
of
Rosenthal and negotiate
with funders to make adjustments where there are overages or shortages on staff time
commitments. He is expected to monitor grant expenditures proactively so as to avoid these
events whenever possible.
15
In a departure from his early years, Padilla is now provided greater responsibility for
preparing grant proposals. Pre-grant activities comprise 25 percent
of
his time. Padilla is
expected to prepare a complete template for a grant application following Rosenthal's
identification
of
a funding source. Padilla is also expected to prospect for new funding
opportunities. Padilla now plans and prepares all administrative aspects
of
the proposal,
including the budget, budget justifications, and supporting documentation. He must review the
grantor's requirements and determine
if
they can be fulfilled under the University's policies
and procedures for research activity (e.g., authorized portion
of
faculty salaries assigned, fringe
benefit rates) and the availability
of
staff time based on staffing already committed to existing
grants. Padilla is also expected to monitor merit review cycles in order to predict pay increases
so as to match the grant budget with the appropriate pay scales. There is added complexity for
the Uganda work in terms
of
subcontracting with foreign entities, involving the same issues
noted above regarding post-grant administration. Padilla composes all written portions
of
the
proposal except for Rosenthal's scientific discussion
of
goals and outcomes. He is responsible
for independently knowing all compliance and submission requirements. Once the grant is
approved, he must review all
of
the salaries with Rosenthal to confirm the availability
of
the
15
Although post-award work in many of the University's departments is considered
less complex, it is the opinion of the San Francisco General Hospital grants manager that post-
award work for this medical research is more complex because of the financial monitoring
aspects and the requirement for thorough knowledge of the budgets as proposed and approved.
24

proposed staffing. Padilla is responsible for 23 grant sources and $2.3 million in funding
annually. Rosenthal's grants are typically in the $500,000 range.
Nine other department of medicine research services analysts, ranging from analyst Is
to analyst IV's, are responsible for a range of one to 19 PI's, 10 to 46 budgets, and $1.5 to $8.5
million in funds. 	The particular level of analyst is a function of the number of grant sources
and total dollar amount. Analyst II' s are responsible for $1 to $2.5 million and 5 to 30
budgets. Within the recent past, one other_ assistant in the San Francisco General Hospital
research services division was reclassified to an analyst position. Otherwise all others
performing this level of work were hired into their positions at the analyst level.
Marie Lim
The anesthesia and preoperative care department at the UCSF campus provides services
and training programs at four hospital sites. It is one of the largest clinical departments at the
campus, with approximately 100 full time anesthesiologists, 75 residents, and 25 clinical
fellows on staff. Marie Lim is responsible for one of two training programs that deal with
medical students. The other, a residency program for medical school graduates enrolled in the
department's three-year training program, is managed by a program manager, to whom one
analyst II and one administrative assistant III report.
The medical student program offers clerkships, lasting between two and four weeks,
that include a set of core courses and electives (a total of six advanced courses) as well as
clinical rotations. Core course clerkships fulfill graduation requirements for the medical
students. Lim reports to one of the department's two physicians in charge of medical
education-specifically the director in charge of medical student education-who in turn
reports directly to the department chair. Both she and the chair work at the department's main
Parnassus office. The medical student program is administered principally through the hospital
25

site directors and the course directors. 	On the operations side, Lim reports to the department's
operations manager, who in turn reports to the department's director.
The department has proposed moving Lim to an analyst position from her current
administrative assistant III position. Lim was initially hired as a temporary employee
performing generic administrative support. After six months she was assigned to coordinate
the core course clerkship where she reported to one faculty member. In this position, the site
director would typically solicit the lecturers for the course. Later Lim dropped the core
courses and assumed responsibility for the electives.
Prior to Lim taking the position, responsibilities were assigned to an administrative
assistant III who spent the other half of his time providing administrative support to the
faculty. 	At that time, the clerkship program had between 10 and 12 students enrolled.
Abandonment of the program was considered because of its limited value. The goal of the
program is to retain current medical students and attract outside students for their residency
program at the University by permitting them to observe the specialty in practice. During
Lim's tenure, the program has expanded to approximately 35 medical students, and the number
of courses has increased. 16
Lim screens all applicants for clerkships coming from outside the University system.
She checks for documentation, including academic preparation (analysis of course
equivalency), letters of recommendation, the health test, and visas. She reviews the curriculum
vitae and the applicant's letter of interest. For early applicants, the review process is summary
because admissions are on a first-come-first-serve basis. But Lim can and does exercise
discretion in awarding the last remaining slots when applicants begin competing for the last
openmgs.
16 When Lim went on maternity leave, her duties were assigned to an administrative
assistant III, though the substitute required assistance.
26

Lim schedules all
of
the medical student activities during the clerkships, attempting to
fill their schedule with a combination
of
classes and practical exercises. Lectures, conferences,
seminars, orientations, and wrap-up sessions amount to approximately 168 activities spread
across the group. Lim is required to know the goals
of
each student, their preparation, and the
content
of
the courses in order to appropriately schedule activities. After surveying the
students' goals, as well as the sequence
of
clerkships, lectures, and practice activities, Lim
coordinates with the schedules
of
the attending physicians and lecturers who teach the courses
with those
of
the students. 	When she schedules a student to rotate through a particular clinical
site, she attempts to match the student with the specialists at that site. In conjunction with the
site directors, Lim schedules the faculty to conduct new-student orientations, a portion
of
which she presents as it relates to her scheduling. Lim acts in a student advisor role to provide
more in-depth advice on an individual basis to students seeking to maximize the benefit
of
their clerkship. In the residency program, the responsibility for preparing the master schedule
for
residents-of
one year duration as opposed to the maximum
of
four weeks for
clerkships-
is assigned to an analyst II.
17
If
there are last-minute cancellations
of
a lecture, Lim must notify all
of
the students.
She has discretion whether to reschedule it, depending on its importance to the series, and the
availability in the schedules
of
all for a make-up session. Lim will contact other faculty
members to substitute
if
the regular lecturer gives notice
of
unavailability. Lim will also
advise a student missing a lecture or rotation how and whether to schedule a make-up. 	The site
directors have delegated Lim the authority to require a student to reschedule a missed session.
Lim prepares a yearly report using Excel to tally the number and variety of procedures the
students have performed for quality assurances purposes.
7 The pediatrics department presently assigns the medical student coordination work to
an analyst II.
27

Lim is also responsible for securing timely submission of evaluative letters from the
faculty at the completion of the clerkship. She reviews these letters to ensure that the content
is appropriate for submission to the dean's office. Lim submits the students' letter grades to
the dean's office as well. She also evaluates student evaluations of the faculty, which are
submitted on-line. She looks for comments suggesting a problem on the part of a faculty
member. Lim made a decision on her own to hold grades until the student evaluations were
completed, in order to improve the feedback mechanism for improving the quality of the
program. Based on other student feedback, she persuaded a director to change the schedule to
have more consecutive training at one site before rotating to others. Lim is responsible for
updating the department's web-based course postings, for which she uses Dreamweaver
software.
Lim's job description states that she is responsible for funds budgeted for
administration of the program. It describes an example of the consequence of error as a result
of the lack of continuity in scheduling, and therefore quality of training, with a resulting loss of
reputation to the department.
Regina Hazlinger
Regina Hazlinger was hired in 2004 to join UC Riverside's new environmental research
institute. Hazlinger has been working as a_ assistant III, and the University proposed to
reclassify her to an administrative analyst, retaining her working title of assistant to the
director. 	She has a degree in journalism and psychology. The institute's director is Dr. Joseph
Norbeck, a professor of chemical and environmental engineering. Hazlinger reports directly to
Norbeck. Hazlinger and Norbeck were the only two employees of the institute at its founding.
The institute coordinates and promotes on-campus research activities-conducted through five
research centers (air pollution, conservation biology, environmental research, sustainable
28

suburban development, and water resource management)-with outside agencies, such as
environmental regulatory agencies and private industry. These collaborative efforts take the
form of contracts and grant-supported research. The institute also promotes off-campus
environmental initiatives, primarily through education and other forms of organizational
support.
As the institute has grown, a new focus of Hazlinger's position is to support Norbeck's
external activities designed to promote the work of the institute nationally and abroad. 	This
promotional work has taken the form of major national and international conferences.
Hazlinger develops the agenda for the event (establishing the topical headings based on
previous conferences and creating new and more timely topics as dictated by changes in
content of the presenters), arranges the speakers and referees, and obtains visa clearance for the
foreign travelers. In arranging for speakers and creating the agenda, she prepares the
announcement soliciting abstracts for technical papers. She reviews the papers submitted and
assigns them to appropriate categories. Hazlinger reviews the abstracts and makes a
recommendation to Norbeck as to whether to make an invitation for a full paper. Norbeck
reviews the abstracts and approves or rejects Hazlinger's recommendations. Hazlinger is also
responsible for all logistical support, including renting the conference facilities, arranging
meals, and setting up needed equipment. She is responsible for sending out the conference
invitations. In the course of that work she researches potential invitees. The institute currently
sponsors two to three conferences annually. Due to her resourcefulness and self-initiative,
Hazlinger has grown beyond the scope of the position originally advertised. Norbeck treats her
both as an executive assistant and "assistant director" of the institute.
Another component of Hazlinger's work is prospecting for research funding
opportunities, forwarding request-for-proposal announcements to the campus's research center
29

directors, outlining the proposals (including the budget justification), and archiving surveys
and studies to support proposals. 	On more routine proposals, she completes the application
herself. 	In the remainder, she obtains descriptions of the technical aspects of the research from
the centers' directors to enter into the proposal.
Post-award administrative responsibilities are also handled by Hazlinger. 	She monitors
the budgets of the grants. 	She monitors progress toward the deliverables and draw-downs on
grants, and resolves compliance issues on the funders' side. 	She is included in monthly
conference calls with the researchers and the funders to discuss these issues, which requires
fluency on many of the technical aspects of the research. 	Hazlinger monitors the compliance
demands that are added or amended during the course of the research to ensure they are
communicated to the responsible parties and fulfilled during the term of the grant. 	She attends
technical meetings and prepares minutes for circulation.
Recently a vice chancellor tasked Hazlinger with producing a video to promote the
activities of the research centers. She responded by independently producing a video,
including production of the video's interviews, after training herself to use a video software
program. Hazlinger is also the author and creator of other informational materials, like
brochures and information for conference participants. She is responsible for arranging the
copying and printing of these materials. 	She negotiates the contracts with vendors needed for
the conferences.
Work of a secretarial nature carried over from her original position includes
maintaining Norbeck's calendar and making travel arrangements for his considerable out-of-
town schedule.
30

Martha Thomas
Martha Thomas is employed by the UC Irvine police department. The principal
function of both the previous and current position is one of custodian of records. The position
is tasked with maintaining records of criminal offenses occurring on the campus and ensuring
compliance with the reporting requirements mandated by the Jeanne Clery Disclosure Act.
This federal statute requires an annual report containing crime statistics as well as descriptions
of campus policies regarding incident reporting, campus access and security, scope of campus
security force authority, relationships with governmental law enforcement agencies, and public
information programs. Thomas reviews the crime reports which are submitted by the
department's sergeants. She reviews the reported crimes against the provisions of the
California Penal Code, Civil Code, and Vehicle Code. If she believes the crime is not properly
classified, she has the authority to instruct the sergeant to change it or conduct additional
research or investigation to support the initial determination. Thomas works independently of
her supervisor and makes the final determination on the accuracy of the crime reports. Thomas
must understand and apply procedures contained in the Federal Bureau ofinvestigation's
Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, which explain how criminal offenses must be classified
and scored. Scoring is determining the number of offenses per incident; it requires the exercise
of discretion in eliminating offenses of lesser degree if occurring on the same occasion.
Thomas aggregates the data from the individual reports for monthly and annual reports
submitted to the Department of Justice and ultimately made available to the public, including
prospective students and their families. Thomas prepares another University report which is
forwarded to the federal Department of Education.
Thomas's old job description summarizes the position as maintaining criminal records,
providing training and work direction to the campus security staff, and creating and updating
31

procedures for maintaining department records in order to comply with University policies and
procedures, as well as federal and state laws. Her new job description states that, in addition to
her previous duties, the position oversees all aspects
of
the department's records division,
managing records projects, providing statistical analysis and reporting systems, determining
avenues for report resolution, assessing potential liability, and advising management and
officers on appropriate action.
After reviewing the crime reports for accuracy, Thomas finalizes them and routes them
to local law enforcement agencies and the campus judicial affairs office. Additional
responsibility under the category
of
liaison duties includes responding to California Public
Records Act requests from the public. No single manual guides this work, but she refers to the
Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, California Penal Code, and the Public Records Act.
Thomas must be careful not to release a report where a criminal investigation is ongoing, so as
not to jeopardize the success
of
that investigation. Thomas is the sole person responsible for
responding to "Pitchess"
18
motion requests. The liais~n duties have increased from 5 percent
to 20 percent in the new position. A new "special projects" function, consisting
of
5 percent
of
her time involves researching and reviewing methods for special projects and information
gathering at campus police departments and governmental law enforcement agencies.
Thomas has received specialized training to enable her to handle the responsibilities
of
her position, including a five-day "records clerk" course session at a regional training center
for a Peace Officers Standards Training, a one-day training on Pitchess motions, and a two-day
training on the California Public Records Act, both presented by the California Peace Officers'
Association.
8 The motion is a criminal defendant's process for obtaining an officer's personnel
records to determine if the arresting officer has been the subject of previous complaints
regarding incidents or acts similar to those involved in the defendant's case. Confidentiality
and scope determinations are involved in this release.
32

The title
of
custodian
of
records duties was previously held by the chief
of
police, with
Thomas providing much
of
the support work. The title has been passed on to Thomas. 	The
difference in her work is the full accountability she now has in the position.
Jeanine Leary
The University's Cooperative Extension includes a consumer economics program
operating out
of
the UC Riverside campus. Consistent with the University's public service
mission, the program develops and promotes educational and life skills programs for families
with limited income (e.g., financial literacy, home buying, and transitioning
off
public
assistance). The unit has a staff
of
between 8 and
15
employees, reporting to Karen Varcoe.
Varcoe's two principal assistants are program representatives, who help manage the program
and develop curriculum. Leary began employment in the unit performing basic secretarial and
assistant
duties-answering
telephones, mailing, copying, conference registrations, travel
vouchers, purchase orders, and basic cost accounting for the department's grant funding.
As a result
of
her aptitude for computer systems and training she acquired outside
of
work, Leary assumed responsibility for the department's computer operations. The system is a
network with a free-standing server,
11
printers, and 10 desktop computers. She assesses
needs for new equipment, researches options, and recommends purchases. Leary then installs
the network systems (printers, file sharing, anti-virus, and website software), updates the
software, develops the department's webpage applications, and troubleshoots problems in the
network. 	She is the liaison to the campus computer department. After joining the department,
Leary attended a number
of
classes in computer systems, including those toward a community
college associate's degree. These skills distinguished Leary from
the_
assistant III she
replaced. Varcoe proposed Leary for reclassification to the position of programmer analyst.
33

The consumer electronics department relies on extramural support in the range of
$500,000 to $2 million annually, separated into eight accounts. Leary is responsible for cost
accounting with respect to these grants, ensuring that expenditures are allocated to the proper
grant sources and determining how questionable expenses can be charged. She is responsible
for recharge activity (obtaining authorization to reallocate overages and shortages), handling
the more complex issues. Leary provides Varcoe with policy analysis in order to solve
problems in expense allocation. The financial accounting work has become more complex in
the past four years due to an increase in the number of grants administered by the department
and the evolution of University and external regulations. Varcoe sent Leary to a number of
classes for training in this area.
As Leary's duties increased over time, Varcoe hired a_ assistant to perform Leary's
previous work. Leary supervises this employee.
Gloria Medina
The department of physiology at the UCSF school of medicine coordinates a "block"
course for medical students covering organs. The course, which lasts 13 weeks and is the
longest block at the school, is taught by a team of faculty members. The department assigns
the work of developing the three-course syllabus to the position of curriculum coordinator.
That position is presently held by Gloria Medina. Development of the syllabus, the primary
function of the position, involves obtaining the "raw material" for the courses from 160 faculty
members and preparing the final, 2000-page document for distribution to approximately 140
medical students. Medina's revised job description describes "course administration" (i.e.,
provision of "administrative and teaching coordination for program courses across all
participating departments") and the function of "primary liaison to students and faculty" as the
most significant responsibility at 65 percent of time. The editing function requires
34

coordination with program coordinators to achieve consistency in font, columns, figure
legends, medical symbols, and general syllabus procedures. Medina oversees the layout of the
final document. 	Coordination of the syllabus preparation involves setting deadlines with
faculty for submission of their course materials. The liaison function covers such issues as
resolving issues students have with a class or instructor. Medina works at the Parnassus
campus, but is supervised by an MSO at the Mission Bay campus. She typically speaks to her
supervisor only one day each week.
Medina began employment as a senior clerk typist in 1992, serving three years in that
position, followed by three years as a_ assistant I, and three years as a_ assistant II. 	She
was elevated to a_ assistant III when her course syllabus duties changed as a result of the
incorporation of courses from departments other than physiology. This change involved a
change in scope and volume of the work, with the number of faculty interactions increasing
from 12 to over 100. After three years in that position, the department requested the disputed
reclassification to a program representative III. The reclassification proposal was revised to
reflect that Medina has three _ 	assistants reporting to her. 	She is responsible for hiring the
positions, conducting their performance evaluations, recommending merit increases, and
authorizing overtime. 	Supervision, the second largest function, accounts for 20 percent of
Medina's time. 	Technical skills added to the position (in addition to Word and Excel
formerly) include Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Acrobat, Dreamweaver, and Pagemaker, which are
necessary for coordination of web-based course materials, an activity comprising 5 percent of
Medina's time.
Medina's course coordinator job description parallels two curriculum coordinators
classified as analyst Is in the cellular and molecular pharmacology department. It has
similarities to a program representative III position in the family and community medicine
35

department, though that position emphasizes administrative coordination, planning of courses,
and recruitment of instructors (50-percent time) over syllabus development. On the
organizational chart, it falls under programs and academic support and is paired with a
program coordinator (analyst) for the neuroscience graduate program.
36
Tesla Parrales
UCLA's undergraduate admissions and relations department evaluates applications of
prospective undergraduate students, including both high school graduates and transferring
undergraduates. The department has an evaluation unit and a public response unit. The
evaluation unit, staffed by 12 SAO's, focuses on reviewing the applications for admission by
high school graduates and transferring college students. This unit develops the policies by
which freshman applicants are evaluated and upholds the University's policies on transfer of
credits. 	The public response unit is responsible for all of the external communication with
applicants, their parents, and the general public regarding the admissions process. This
includes the receipt and processing of applications and transcripts, as well as the dissemination
of information necessary for applicants to obtain and complete the forms required for
admission and the transfer of academic credits from other institutions. The public response
unit, which is housed in the admissions office, may be accessed on a walk-in basis, by
telephone, written correspondence, or e-mail.
The University proposed to reclassify Parrales from a_ assistant III to an SAO I
position in the public response unit. Parrales works primarily for the public response unit (65-
percent time), but has responsibilities in the evaluation unit (35-percent time). 	She is both
responsible for overall supervision of the public response unit and is a member of the unit
providing direct services to the public. Parrales directs the work of three_ assistant II's, a
student assistant III, and six students, who are the first-line responders. These employees

provide general and routine types
of
information, such as GP A, test score minimums, and
course requirements for admission. 	She schedules the staff, evaluates the staffing needs,
designs and conducts staff training, and engages in personnel functions. 	Coordination
of
responses to e-mail inquiries (40,000 annually) is a significant responsibility. Parrales
delegates the work so as to ensure timely responses. There is a significant training component
to the work because
of
frequent turnover in the student workers. Parrales designs and leads
this training. 	She is credited with elevating the formality
of
that training during her tenure.
The front-line staff also logs in transcripts submitted for awarding
of
credits for analysis by
others.
As distinguished from her staff, who handle routine requests and provide explanation
for points already contained in publications, Parrales handles specialized requests. 	These
include questions concerning international student applications or transfers, re-entry students,
college credit transfers, employment recruiters, and other matters which must be referred by
the front-line staff. The international student inquiries involve research and more in-depth
correspondence with students and the institutions. As an assistant to one
of
the office's
international specialists, Parrales over time received specialized training in review
of
international transcripts. The admissions office distinguishes between clerical counseling and
SAO counseling as involving the ability to interpret potentially more involved inquiries such as
those involving a current student needing advice on course selection at another institution
which he or she will seek to transfer back to the campus. Parrales will access more specialized
resources like the Western Association
of
Schools and Colleges' guide for course requirements
for various majors to advise transferring students. Parrales spends approximately four hours
each day responding to public inquiries, blended with supervision and advising her staff. 	After
an SAO I vacated a similar position in the public response unit, but without the supervision
37

component, Parrales, who was a_ assistant II at that time, was assigned to assume all the
responsibilities of the departing SAO with the added component of supervision. 19
In her evaluation unit capacity, Parrales evaluates high school and college transcripts
for course equivalencies and weights transcripts submitted for purposes of awarding academic
credit, specializing in review of equivalencies of community college courses. She will
determine if a transfer of lower division courses can be awarded upper division credit. 	She
also troubleshoots problems in student record evaluation, serves as a departmental liaison for
the summer session office, registrar's office, financial aid, college of letters and sciences, and
the engineering departments, and participates in the review of applications for admission. 	In
reviewing applications and transcripts, Parrales and other SAO's in the office must adhere to
specific University guidelines and policies. Parrales is responsible for overseeing the
movement of admissions files through the application review process, as well as operational
control of the transfer student records submitted for academic credit. As opposed to the
administrative assistant level work, which involves the actual review and coding of a file or the
verification of transfer credits, Parrales is the resource where a judgment call is required on the
proper file code or a troublesome transcript. Parrales's progression within the department
mirrors that of the early years of a current SAO III, who is a lead SAO in the evaluation unit
and writes guidelines for the transfer admission process. Parrales left graduate school,
returning to the office where she had worked as a student to resume duties in admissions
counseling.
19 The office traditionally has not filled at the administrative assistant III level. 	Parrales
was placed there after CUE opposed the reclassification from administrative assistant II
directly to SAO I.
38

Walter Douglas
The UC Riverside campus operates a federally licensed radio station in pursuit
of
its
public service mission
as
well as to offer practical education and training to its students.
KUCR, broadcasting on the FM dial for over 25 years, is staffed in the main by student
volunteers-over
100 in total and an average
of
20 to 30 on a daily basis. The majority
of
programming is generated by students. The station is also a rebroadcaster
of
content produced
by outside sources. The bulk
of
programming falls in the public affairs category, but there is a
considerable amount
of
air-time devoted to music. The station's director and general manager
is Louis Vandenberg, who reports to a campus vice-chancellor. Formerly responsible for day-
to-day operations, Vandenberg has delegated that responsibility to the assistant director, Walter
Douglas. Vandenberg hired Douglas into
a_
assistant I position in 2003 and has been
grooming him to take over the operational responsibilities. The University proposes a
reclassification
of
Douglas to an SAO position. Douglas had nine additional years
of
experience at the station beginning as a student. Vandenberg has turned to long-term planning
responsibilities and development
of
the radio station within the larger community, though he
remains involved in programming decisions.
Douglas is currently responsible for operation
of
the station on a 24-7 basis, training
and overseeing the work
of
the student volunteers, handling custody and acquisitions for the
musical library, and ensuring compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
University, and station regulations, policies and procedures. Significant fines from the
FCC-
maximums in the range
of
$300,000 to $3 million per
day-can
be imposed for on-air
incidents such as those involving indecency and obscenity. The station provides
comprehensive training to student radio hosts, covering technical aspects of equipment
operation as well as programming elements, in six-to-eight one-hour training sessions led by
39

Vandenberg and Douglas. Douglas and Vandenberg, along with some student participants,
interview and select students interested in host positions.
Douglas is responsible for continuity of programming and is the point of contact for
producers outside the University offering program material. He reviews a large volume of
produced program material of the public affairs and music variety, making selections
consistent with the mission of the station. Douglas has overall responsibility for selection of
new content for public affairs broadcasts, through the station's affiliate source, the Associated
Press, and local news media sources, as well as pre-produced music programming. He hosts
one music show on his own and produces a public affairs program on educational issues. 	He
prepares and reviews public service announcements prepared by others, and trains students to
do the same. Douglas continuously monitors the broadcast as an on-site censor. Douglas
books studio time for outside productions, oversees FCC inspections, coordinates the campus
emergency response function (e.g., announcements in connection with an on-campus bomb
threat). 	Douglas makes artistic judgments about the station's overall musical programming,
provided mainly through student hosts, ensuring variety of genre and quality of content.
Vandenberg initiates external public relations events to promote the station and delegates
production of the resulting remote-broadcasting events to Douglas.
Douglas performed all of this work under close supervision in his early years at the
station. 	After coming to believe that Douglas was competent to handle the responsibilities of
the director position independently, Vandenberg allowed Douglas to oversee operations of the
station. 	Vandenberg entrusted Douglas with the position in part because of Douglas' strong
background in music, particularly his ability to follow and assess contemporary forms.
Vandenberg and his superior concluded that Douglas' responsibility was comparable to the
work of other SAO' s, particularly as it relates to supervision of students.
40

Leah Tamayo-Brion
UC San Diego's history department is one of six departments in the arts and humanities
division. Alejandra Ruiz is the MSO for the department, reporting to the chair. Ruiz's four
direct reports include a financial manger, network administrator, academic affairs specialist,
and student affairs manager. The student affairs manager is classified as an SAO II. The
department has four areas of specialization: Chinese Studies, Judaic Studies, Science Studies,
and Japanese Studies. Each of these subdivisions is directed by a program representative II.
Many of the language classes are taught by lecturers. The department has a total of
approximately 37 tenure-track faculty.
Tamayo-Brion was hired in 2003 as an administrative assistant III to replace a
departing administrative specialist. She was charged with handling the academic affairs
matters of the department, though she was not fully functional in that area until after she
received training from Ruiz. Within a year the reclassification proposal was drafted.
Academic affairs is a form of personnel management, focusing on tenure-track faculty
promotions and merit raises as well as hiring and retention of non-Academic-Senate lecturers,
who are represented in a bargaining unit. The merit increases/promotion-in-rank work
involves review and analysis of the University's system wide Policy Procedure Manual (PPM).
Tamayo-Brion is the department's contact person for interchange with the dean's office on
merit/promotional advancement. She is responsible for notifying faculty of their advancement
opportunities and explaining their rights (e.g., salary increases upon promotion and merit
awards). Although it has not occurred yet, Ruiz intends to delegate full management of the
merit advancement process to Tamayo-Brion.
Presently, Tamayo-Brion is responsible for preparing the faculty files for review and
performing the initial evaluation of student and other-faculty evaluations (peer reviews)
41

contained in the file, with a view to advising the chair. While the student evaluations have
numerical ratings which are presented in summative form, Tamayo-Brion is required to verify
the summative data and analyze individual rating sheets in cases where a faculty member
receives negative ratings.
Ruiz described academic affairs as having evolved into a "sensitive and complex"
specialty, due in large measure to the requirements of the lecturers' MOU. 	These provisions
contain increasing levels of obligation to long-term lecturers. Tamayo-Brion is responsible as
well for disseminating information department-wide regarding updates to the PPM. The other
departments in the arts and humanities division, as well as economics and sociology, staff this
position at the administrative specialist level.
The academic affairs specialist also devotes significant time to analysis of the staffing
of the department, including the four studies areas, to ensure maintenance of the appropriate
complement of lecturers and appointment-times to cover the needs of the department. 	The
proposal describes this as "short- and long-range planning to meet changing department goals
and objectives." Tamayo-Brion is the primary advisor to Ruiz and the department chair on
such matters as the implementation of salary increases and its effect on the availability of
department funds. 	As part of implementation, Tamayo-Brion manually makes changes in the
database system to adjust faculty members' salaries. She is also advisor to the studies'
program representatives, including their initial-hire orientation on personnel matters, including
the terms of the MOU for lecturers.20 She advises program representatives and the department
chair on what is permitted under the MOU, including assisting in responding to grievances
2 In this department, program representatives schedule classes, assemble the personnel
files of the lecturers for advancement purposes, recruit for openings, handle undergraduate
petitions (declaring a minor in one of the studies programs), and manage the teaching assistant
workforce.
42

(factual investigation and recommended courses of action).21 Tamayo-Brion oversees
procurement of visas for visiting lecturers and is required to be knowledgeable about
immigration laws.
In terms of planning, Tamayo-Brion is required to gather all relevant information
necessary for the department to chart out the courses and staffing needs over a three-year
period. This includes available financial resources, projections on student enrollment based on
historical information, and projected sabbatical leaves. She calculates sabbatical leave credits
but directs another employee in the preparation of department leave forms. 	Tamayo-Brion
currently directs the work of two others in the department, the main office coordinator and an
assistant responsible for lecturer recruitment, though she does not evaluate them.
Karen Stephens
UC Irvine established a department of biomedical engineering in 2002, evolving out of
first an interdisciplinary majors program and later a center. With departmental status comes
the right to confer undergraduate degrees. The first undergraduates were admitted in 2002.
Karen Stephens joined the department in 2004. She is currently employed as an administrative
assistant III. 	She has been responsible for coordination of both the undergraduate and graduate
programs, reporting to the department's MSO. The department has proposed she be
reclassified to an administrative specialist position. The department has grown in size since its
inception and with the increase in enrolled students, both undergraduate and graduate, there is
a greater need for program coordination and student advising. Growth has leveled at around 80
students in the graduate degree program. The higher level of responsibility expected of
After receiving the in-house advice, the department chair or MSO must begin
consulting with the specialist at the campus labor relations office responsible for processing
the grievance. When the chair or MSO attends a grievance meeting, Tamayo-Brion is
debriefed following it.
43

Stephens is primarily in the areas of graduate student advising and support of the graduate
program in general, which now constitute the bulk of her current responsibilities.
Stephens is a continuous point of contact for graduate students beginning with their
recruitment and admission continuing through the completion of their doctorate four or five
years later. Because of the newness of the field and the diversity of its applicants, graduate
degree candidates come from a range of academic backgrounds-less than half have a
biomedical engineering baccalaureate degree-and require advice as to their academic
preparation for the program. This is particularly so in the areas of course equivalency for
subjects like biology and mathematics, the need to repeat a required course taken at the
undergraduate or graduate level, and interpreting their competitiveness based on graduate
entrance examinations. While routine questions can be answered by reference to the
department's graduate student handbook (which she writes and edits) and website (which she
updates with new content), Stephens responds directly to candidates on the more shaded
questions. 	With the acquisition of this base of knowledge, the department has been able to
streamline its graduate program admissions process by assigning Stephens the task of
screening applications. She begins by scanning the application and supporting documentation
into a database, ensuring their completeness on an ongoing basis. The applications are then
brought before the faculty committee that determines which candidates will be offered
admission. 	Stephens is a voting member of that committee. Since she is more familiar with
the written application and is apt to have had some additional communication with the
candidate, Stephens is helpful in explaining questions about a student's qualifications and
alerting the committee to candidates with less than sincere intentions. 	Stephens advises
students once admitted on course deficiencies, recommends appropriate classes, explains the
rotations within the laboratory classes, and assists in matching students with a faculty advisor.
44

When the program was in its initial stages, a faculty member handled many
of
these
responsibilities.
Stephens ensures the enrolled students are continuously registered with the graduate
division
of
the campus and that the division is notified
of
progress toward the degree.
Stephens works closely with the department's graduate faculty advisor, who oversees the
graduate program curriculum and establishes degree qualifications, and monitors student
progress with use
of
a self-created Excel spreadsheet, alerting the individual advisor and
department chair
of
graduate students not making adequate progress. She handles both routine
questions such as student housing options and the timing
of
faculty sponsored research grants
which may offer subsistence income or opportunities for academic specialization. For joint
degree students, Stephens advises outside faculty advisors on the department's requirements
for progress toward the degree. 	She is responsible for coordinating the annual orientation
program for newly admitted graduate students. This includes arranging for food and
accommodations, arranging laboratory tours, a short 10-to-15 minute presentation, and being
available to answer questions.
On the undergraduate side, Stephens works with the faculty member in charge
of
national accreditation, coordinating compilation
of
documentation-the history
of
course
offerings and samples
of
graded student work from graduate teaching assistants in the
program-and
training teaching assistants on the type
of
samples required. She completed the
questionnaire submitted to the accrediting agency in advance
of
its recent site visit. 	Other
duties related to the undergraduate program have diminished over time as she now focuses the
majority of her time on graduate student affairs.
45

Nancy Keys
UC San Diego's recreation department is a part of the student affairs division,
providing recreational programs to students, staff, faculty and the local community. It is part
of a cluster of departments within the student affairs division that also includes the
intercollegiate athletics department and sports facilities department. The recreation department
operates aquatic programs, sports clubs, instructional programs, and intramural athletics. It
retains 34 full-time employees, 500 student staff, 300 class instructors, and 400 volunteers.
The regular staff serve across five bargaining units.
Nancy Keys is the department's in-house human resources staff person serving
recreation and sports facilities employees, reporting directly to the department director, Dave
Koch. 	She has been employed by the University since 1967. Keys creates the job description
for all new positions, reviews existing job descriptions, initiates and conducts classification
reviews,22 oversees the hiring process-monitoring compliance with applicable hiring
policies-and is the departmental liaison to the campus human resources department. She
conducts training of staff, covering supervisory responsibilities and policy changes. In terms
of salary administration, Keys reviews staff salaries and compares them with the labor force
for purposes of comparability. Koch relies on Keys to provide guidance on all human
resources issues that arise within the department and to consult with the campus human
resources department as necessary to comply with University and campus policies. Keys
advises managers and supervisors regarding hiring, separation, transfers, layoffs and reductions
in time. 	She also enters transactional information into the payroll personnel system, with the
exception of timekeeping matters.
22 ur"' <;;:uan D'1ego ct·f,c-	1 1ers f rom th,e ot11er	h 	campuses m	• 	mamtammg	. 	. . 	a centra11 h1uman
resources department. It delegates some functions, such as classification analysis, to the vice-
chancellor level.
46

Approximately three years ago, an administrative support office within the vice
chancellor of student affairs office serviced the human resources needs of the athletics, sports
facilities, and recreation departments. Keys worked in that office, before a reorganization
assigned these staff directly to the departments. Prior to the reorganization, Keys performed
similar duties in the student affairs office, covering all three sports divisions. In 2005, the
University proposed to reclassify Keys from a _ 	assistant III to an administrative specialist-
the pending request-though prior to her assignment to Koch. The University presented job
descriptions of two other human resource specialists in the student affairs division with duties
similar to those of Keys. A UC San Diego compensation analyst testified that the specialist is
conceived as a professional level position with a focus on independent decisionmaking.
Ramon Smith
The University of California Press, a division of the UCOP, is the publishing arm of the
University. It is revenue-generating and self-supporting, relying on income from the
publication of books and journals, the bulk of which are intended for the academic or scholarly
audience. The marketing section of the Press is divided by function: direct marketing,
advertising, publicity, and academic exhibits. Each division is headed by a coordinator.
Ramon Smith, currently a_ assistant III, is the academic exhibits coordinator.
The academic exhibits coordinator position was recently held by Erich Metting-Van
Rijn at an MSO I level. Prior to that Metting-Van Rijn was an exhibits assistant in a_
assistant II position. When Metting-Van Rijn was given the additional responsibility for
textbook promotions, he hired Smith to assist him with the exhibits work, which Metting-Van
Rijn continued to direct. The academic exhibits section focuses on promotion of the Press's
publications at meetings and conventions of academics and professionals in the relevant field.
Typically these are annual meetings where up to 100 publishers, including other university
47

presses and commercial houses, exhibit their publications. The promotion strategy is two-fold,
aimed both at attracting purchases and competitive positioning vis-a-vis other presses for the
best authors in the future.
The Press has two publishing cycles each year, presenting a revised set of 70 to 80
offerings each cycle, approximately 80 percent of which are new books, for a total of 150
books promoted each year. 	The academic conventions have booth space which they rent to
publishers. These spaces are limited in size, restricting each publisher to displaying no more
than 50 to 100 books. The focus is on identifying those books of most interest to the particular
audience of meeting attendees. 	Selection of books for display and promotion at meetings must
be coordinated within the product life cycle in conjunction with the acquisitions and
production arms of the Press, as well as the related functions of the marketing division
(advertising, direct marketing, web marketing, trade sales, and library sales). This takes place
at the new title launch meeting-essentially a project management meeting-run by the
managing editor and attended by the chief financial officer, marketing director, productions
editor, and acquisitions editor, where production plans are formulated for between one and six
titles. 	The exhibits coordinator attends this meeting and advises the team about the exhibit
opportunities and their timing in relation to the publication release dates. For books accepted
for production, Smith begins to formulate an exhibits plan, which he then coordinates with
other marketing staff as a campaign plan for the title is developed.
Smith is responsible for all staffing decisions regarding a booth. The yearly calendar
presently has 28 to 30 academic conventions, reserved for meetings where the publications list
contains sufficient titles to mandate a direct presence. 	Smith determines the appropriateness of
sending additional marketing staff or an acquisitions editor. In a large number of cases, the
Press subcontracts out the presentation to a third party when the Press is jointly exhibiting with
48

other publishers at major conventions. Combining the Press exhibits and the joint exhibits, the
Press participates in between 100 and 200 events per year. A critical decision for Smith would
include whether to send acquisitions staff based on the potential to identify new authors, and
whether such staff attending can conduct marketing activities in lieu of sending marketing
staff. 	In response to a request from either an acquisitions editor or author, Smith will also
assess the past record at a joint exhibit convention to determine the potential for an actual
presence going forward.
Smith is allocated an annual budget of$ 150,000, $20,000 of which is reserved for
travel expenses. He makes all decisions on releasing funds for the booth activity, typically
amounting to $5,000 per exhibit, as well as determining the adequacy of the budget on an
annual basis. He coordinates the decisions on which books to promote, whether to display the
book or arrange for production of a poster for it, whether to send copies for direct sale, or limit
sales to orders, and prepares the list ordering books for display. 	Smith personally staffs about
five to six booths each year.
Smith is also responsible for working with the authors and their requests for exhibition
opportunities. This requires him to have a fairly in-depth knowledge of the content of all the
publications (the position requires a baccalaureate degree), the basis for decisions on which
books to exhibit, and explaining alternative methods of promoting a book to authors whose
work cannot be displayed.
Burke Anderson
UCLA's alumni association is a membership organization for graduates of the
university. The alumni relations staff serves the alumni and the campus through the exchange
of information between the two. The alumni relations staff is housed in the James West
Alumni Center. The 30,000-square-foot center serves as a site of a large number of alumni
49

events, as well as non-affiliated events generated by campus departments, the administration,
and, more recently, outside entities. Opening the center to outside entities (charitable, public
service, scientific organizations, and private businesses) resulted from a strategic planning
process, which identified the benefit to the campus of cultivating more extensive relations with
the community outside. The three rooms of the center accommodate up to 12 events each day,
including Saturdays. Some meetings, like symposiums, lectures, and business meetings, are
small and of short duration. The center can also host large events of up to 1,500 attendees,
with blocks of several days reserved.
Burke Anderson is the center's reservation coordinator. He schedules these events,
currently amounting to 2,500 annually. Ten percent of these events are for outside users. 	The
scheduling of events constitutes 30 percent of his position. Anderson is the primary contact for
all prospective users. He explains the terms of use, the nature of the facility, its limitations and
policies for use, and then vets the user's proposal for compliance with the center's policies.
His booking duties include providing consulting services to clients regarding room set-up,
catering, entertainment, and special accommodations. Should policy changes be appropriate,
such as insurance requirements, event booking, or egress and ingress, Anderson is responsible
for recommending such changes to the director of the center. Anderson enters all scheduled
events into an event database, produces the schedule for distribution to the campus, and
recommends and implements upgrades to the system (e.g., the recent on-line reservation
system).
Anderson is responsible for staffing the events, providing security, and training staff on
emergency safety procedures. 	is informally on-call for emergencies, including those on
weekends, though he has been compensated when additional time was required. 	Anderson
spends time in setting up lecterns, audiovisual equipment and the like, though in most cases the
50

building services coordinator or his student workers handle these tasks. Building and
operations management comprises 25 percent
of
his time.
Basic policies exist for qualifying users and priority for overlapping reservation
requests. Anderson is responsible for compliance with these policies, in conjunction with the
campus Events Office. Anderson explained that there is no existing manual compiling all
of
the policies that apply and that the more sensitive cases involve the application
of
judgment.
For example, he must be careful to avoid booking an event with a controversial speaker that
might provoke a disturbance or protest; at the same time he must avoid being discriminatory in
his approach. Anderson is responsible for resolving all but the most sensitive scheduling
conflict issues. He must ascertain that the user is capable and willing to pay all hard costs
incurred by use
of
the facility, an issue that arises when campus departments intend to charge
such costs to grants or non-discretionary funds. He must determine whether fire safety
regulations may come into play with large events and ensure that the user's event is compatible
with the physical and staffing constraints
of
the facility.
Anderson began employment as a 50-percent time employee. He was involved in
scheduling but his role was limited. Many
of
the bookings were routine-involving campus
entities and repeat users. His role managing reservations expanded with the targeting
of
the
wider customer base. In order to achieve this goal effectively, the center's facilities needed to
be upgraded with, among other improvements, a better audio-visual system. Anderson
coordinated installation
of
these improvements. He is expected to provide guidance and
counsel to the director on building care and maintenance issues.
Anderson is also charged with oversight
of
marketing and promotions-components of
the strategic plan. The two most important added responsibilities prompting the
reclassification proposal were independence in resolving conflicts and implementation of the
51

strategic plan. Anderson came to the position with prior experience in marketing and
managing high profile clients, skills that are well suited to his expanded role. Marketing
activities comprise 10 percent of his time. Anderson wrote the copy for promotional materials
and has cultivated relationships with attractive outside users.
Financial duties constitute 20 percent of Anderson's time. He has delegated the data-
entry work of invoicing expenses and now simply reviews the invoices for completeness and
signs off. He is responsible for resolving billing disputes with the users, with independent
authority to compromise charges that are within the discretion of the center.
Christopher Hall
The AIDS Health Project is a non-profit entity associated with the UCSF department of
psychiatry at the San Francisco General Hospital site. The project has approximately 105
employees, half of whom work at a clinical site and the other half at an administrative site.
Each site has an employee responsible for information technology (IT). The project has over
100 desktop computer stations, with four dedicated servers, operating on a network
applications software.
Christopher Hall was employed as a_ assistant III in 2006, responsible for
administrative support at the clinical site. The primary IT staff person located at the clinical
site was classified as a program analyst IV, specializing in Windows applications. Hall began
providing IT support at the administrative site after on-the-job training under the analyst. He
attended IT classes outside of work as well. When the program analyst IV retired, the office
proposed reclassification of Hall from a_ assistant III to a computer resource specialist II,
designed to assume the analyst's role at 70-percent time, with the remainder devoted to
continuing Hall's facilities management duties. In the process, some of Hall's administrative
duties in the area of scheduling staff were shifted away from his position. At the time of
52

hearing, Hall had vacated the position and the project was advertising the vacancy. The posted
vacancy requires ability to support desktop users, their computers, monitors, printers, and other
peripheral devices, as well as all software applications. The incumbent instructs users on
software products, trains administrative assistants in computer support, sets up new systems
and is responsible for maintenance of database systems. The incumbent must be able to
address and resolve issues related to desktop and enterprise computing, network access, and
security. An associate degree in computer science or information systems is a preferred
qualification.
"Blank" Assistant III and "Blank" Assistant IV Work
CUE witnesses established that pre-award grant work has historically been assigned to
_ 	assistant III' s in terms of gathering cost information for budgets, assembling parts of a grant
proposal, and routing the proposal for the needed signatures within the required deadlines. 	The
assistant Ill's gather and annually update information on staff salary rates for the
participating researchers and increases in materials costs. Under direction of a director or PI, a
assistant might be directed to pursue a particular grant, study its guidelines and determine
what documentation is required, and report back whether the grant is obtainable. Drafts of the
budget are edited under supervision of the director or PI.
Post-award work has included collecting receipts documenting expenses, maintaining
the monthly ledgers on expenses, monitoring them to ensure that the grant work is within
budget, and projecting sufficiency of funds in the fund balance. The _ 	assistant III' s have
worked with accounting staff to ensure all expenses are posted in order to close out the grant,
handled recharge duties, and alerted the department director or the PI of staff shortages.23
Complexity in grant close-out increases with the size of the grant. Multi-year grants
may include expenditures in the millions of dollars.
53

The_ assistants review grant-close-out requirements, and under those guidelines determine
what forms and documentation to include. The_ assistant Ill's have had responsibility for
processing timesheets for the researchers' payroll and for processing equipment orders with
vendors.24 Recently however, the purchasing and payroll function (including vacation and
leave accrual calculations) has been automated at some campuses, eliminating the processing
of paper. Purchasing and ledger checking has been also assigned at the senior typist clerk level
in the past.
Coordination of medical student programs is assigned to _ 	assistants. Beverly Kelly
was a 	assistant II at the UC Davis medical center until her retirement in 2001. Under her
working title of OB/GYN housestaff coordinator, she was the primary contact for 24 fourth-
year medical students. She scheduled the residents through their clerkship rotations, monitored
their certifications for the medical license, and ensured that evaluations of both students and
faculty were completed. 	She processed all of the applications, verified them for completeness,
and prioritized them based on a point-system. The department chair and faculty members
would interview the applicants and make the final determinations on admission. 	Kelly
provided advice to residents on the requirements for licensure. She gathered faculty
evaluations, tallied the scores, summarized them, and presented them to the department chair
for review, before they were placed in the resident's personnel file. 	Similarly, she summarized
resident evaluations and presented them to the department chair for review. Kelly scheduled
faculty for the lecture series, contacting the faculty member's secretary to determine calendar
availability. Based on names provided to her, Kelly also contacted distinguished visiting
24 This profile was described in a number of different settings, including a UCSF
medical research department, a small department with large extramural funding, UC
Riverside's bibliographic studies research center (which digitizes rare books). The
_ 	assistants attend MSO meetings, where policies and guidelines are explained. In some
cases, 	assistants must research a question, though they often contact a director of
accounting for guidance.
54

lecturers and booked them to speak. Kelly was also given responsibility for the clerkship
program, a four-week internship serving four, fourth-year medical students at a time. Kelly
verified that the applications were complete and notified them of acceptance. Clerkships were
awarded on a first-come-first-served basis, contingent upon completion of the necessary
preparatory coursework. Kelly's responsibilities were transferred to an upgraded 	assistant
IV position and posted for hiring in 2006. The posted job description lists day-to-day
administration as the primary duty, though elevates it by adding the provision of "leadership
for the development and implementation of strategic plans" and recommending short- and
long-range goals to the department chair.25
An administrative assistant II position, titled curriculum coordinator, existed at the
UCSF's San Francisco General Hospital site. Through the year 1997, that person scheduled
the rotations for fourth-year medical students who had elected family practice as their
specialty. There were up to 14 students in each eight-week rotation. The general assignment
was similar to Lim's position, though it was smaller in scale. The clerical unit coordinator had
significant contact with the directors of the various participating outpatient and primary care
clinics in the rotation and speakers for the lecture series. The coordinator was delegated
discretion in fitting the students into available clinical assignments and lectures. The students
were assigned to their sites based on decisions of the department's chief coordinator, located at
the main office of the family and community medicine department.
Similar to administrative specialist positions, some portion of human resources work
has been delegated to _ 	assistants, including informal disciplinary counseling, gathering
25 A_ assistant III in the UCSF radiology and nuclear medicine department had
authority to make recommendations on implementation of administrative procedures, though
this was limited to identifying documentation necessary to fulfill the accounting requirements
for post-award transactions or reporting a problem with a participant's documentation
practices.
55

background information, and investigating employee records in order to advise management on
possible courses
of
action. These positions have worked with the department director or
assistant director to prepare paperwork for merit reviews, including keeping track
of
eligibility
periods, and gathering documentation for the review process. The _ 	assistant III' s are the first
point
of
contact for staff seeking to effect personnel transaction record changes. The
assistants also schedule travel and book reservations for administrators and staff.
Similar to SAO's, student advising responsibilities are assigned
to_
assistants.
Delores
D'
Amico
is
employed in the UC Davis sociology department as
a_
assistant IV
under the working title
of
undergraduate advisor.
	D'
Amico provides individual counseling to
prospective, continuing, and transfer students. Over 800 students have declared sociology as
their major.
	D'
Amico helps new and transfer students make course selections and students in
academic difficulty determine
if
they are equipped to complete the major. She assists
transitioning students with determining whether their previous course work satisfies the
department's degree requirements. 	Students come to her either as a result
of
a referral based
on academic difficulties, or voluntarily, often on a drop-in basis. D' Amico determines course
equivalencies for incoming transfers and students studying abroad who seek to have those
credits apply toward the major.26 She makes this determination (not just a recommendation)
on the basis
of
comparing the course catalogs. She also reviews internship proposals to
determine if the projects are legitimate and relevant to the major, though the department does
not officially approve them. 	She maintains student files with academic information regarding
2
D' Amico indicated that the equivalencies for community college students is
contained in a prescriptive document, suggesting that these decisions do not involve significant
discretion.
	If
there is a question, D' Amico can request a copy of the course syllabus. She is
not officially permitted to advise on University degree requirements, but the dean's office
allows the department to make all determinations on major requirements. For out-of-state
students, the equivalencies are determined at the admissions office in terms of credits toward
the degree, while the department determines equivalency toward fulfilling the major.
56

all the majoring students. D'Amico is a source
of
information on the honors program,
scholarships, post-graduate programs, and potential career paths. She maintains a database
showing the courses scheduled, enrollment, teaching assistant assignments, and other pertinent
information for use by the chair, manager, and graduate program coordinator.
Similar to some analyst positions, conference organizing and budgeting matters are
assigned
to_
assistants. Elinore Levine is employed SO-percent time as a visiting scholars
coordinator and 30-percent time as a research assistant in support
of
a faculty member in the
East Asian studies institute at UC Berkeley. The coordinator position is situated within the
Center
of
Chinese Studies, a subdivision
of
the institute. The work
of
the center is to present
seminars, colloquia, and conferences, and to host visiting scholars who wish to engage in study
using the facilities
of
the Berkeley campus (e.g., its libraries and collections). Levine reviews
the incoming applications, ensures the supporting materials are complete, and makes a
recommendation for approval for each
of
the applicants to the chair
of
the center. She has
received training in campus and federal policies (e.g., Department
of
Homeland Security
regulations) that apply to international students.
If
the chair approves the application, Levine
forwards the schoiar a second packet
of
material to complete covering heaith insurance and
visa requirements. She is in regular contact with the scholars once the application is approved.
Levine uses information provided by the scholar to fill in the document issued by the campus
needed to obtain a visa, and forwards that to the appropriate contact person. She may follow
up with a letter
of
explanation to a foreign consulate's office
if
the scholar is having difficulty
with the visa. Levine advises faculty members seeking to host a visiting scholar on these
requirements as well. She provides advice to scholars on temporary housing arrangements.
Levine provides a one-on-one orientation to each incoming scholar, covering what classes they
might wish to audit, using the library's database, and the like. As a liaison with other related
57

campus organizations, she is a conduit
of
information to the scholars on campus activities
of
interest, as well as parking and transportation. Levine organizes a once-each-semester social
event (a lunch or coffee) where scholars can meet each other. She provides text for a website,
which is uploaded by a computer resource person.
In her 25-percent time seminars coordinator position, Levine coordinates the support
and logistics necessary for several fully funded multi-day conferences sponsored yearly by
Chinese Studies center professors and typically attended by international speakers. This
includes travel arrangements, visa documentation, lodging, airport connections, meeting room
reservations, catering, registration, entertainment, and publicity for between 35 and 80
participants. Levine develops a budget and makes the various arrangements in consultation
with the sponsoring faculty member. Wrap-up
of
the conference includes reimbursement
of
expenses, production
of
a summary report
of
expenses, and assistance in compiling the papers
for publication. Levine does similar work for an assigned professor who hosts a conference at
Berkeley or abroad approximately once each year. Under guidance from the professor, Levine
prepares grant requests for these conferences. She prepares grant progress reports, typically
creating the initial draft
of
the narrative. Levine assists her professor in formatting
manuscripts for publication under the publisher's guidelines and arranges travel for her.27
Writing copy, website maintenance, and computer maintenance work is assigned to
_ 	assistants. Sandra Oberlies, a library assistant III at UC Riverside, works in the ordering
and receiving unit
of
the library's acquisitions department. She processes orders for specific
book titles (as opposed to a regular series). Under work described as technical support,
Oberlies supports a department web team of 20 staff members, which determines when to
7 Similarly, a radiology and nuclear medicine_ assistant word-processes a faculty
member's manuscript in conformity with the publisher's guidelines, edits the document, and
presents it back for review.
58

redesign the site in response to direction from the library or the campus. She is one of a
number of staff who revise a portion of the website once decisions are made to update it.
Oberlies wrote portions of the library's website that explains ordering procedures, and she is
responsible for updating it. She updates passwords for vendor databases, revises modules for
ordering and status reports, loads them on the website, and tests them for the vendors. She is
responsible for setting up electronic accounts for new vendors and determining what access
features to include. Updating text for the website requires that the content be recoded from a
word-processing format to HTML format, a skill which Oberlies taught herself. In terms of
procedures, Oberlies writes original copy or works from a template provided to her. Oberlies
also troubleshoots problems with computers and fax machines. As the "first line of defense,"
she identifies problems, fixing those she can, and contacting the systems department for more
difficult ones. She represented her department on a committee that determined the equipment
and technology needs of the library. Oberlies is responsible for training new employees on use
of the automated ordering procedures. Much of Oberlies' s computer knowledge was self-
taught.28
The _ 	assistant III positions were shown to be consistent with the notion of
administrative support for a departmental or unit manager in the sense that the grant
preparation, financial, payroll, human resources, and other staff support work was bundled,
making the incumbent responsible for a range of tasks. In a small science department at UC
Santa Barbara, a_ assistant III in the capacity of the primary support staff for a department
chair combined aspects of many of the positions at issue, ranging from gathering statistics for
reports, such as year-end expenditures and instructional workload, preparing the reports
8 After five years of responsibility in the area, Oberlies took ROP classes and obtained
a state vocational education teaching credential in computer repair and website design,
enabling her to obtain outside employment at a continuation high school.
59

themselves, purchasing (within a prescribed dollar-limit), post-award grant administration,
liaison with other administrative offices, recruitment and outreach activities, student advising,
course change transactions, and monitoring merit promotion opportunities. This is consistent
with the series concept statement itself, distinguishing III-level work ("incumbents have
independent responsibility within overall goals of the organizational unit for a comprehensive
function, service, or unit frequently requiring the determination of procedures, methods and
policy applications; prepare reports and policy recommendations; and participate in long-range
planning for clerical/administrative needs within overall goals of the organizational unit"). 	In
connection with these tasks, the series concepts recognize that some analysis is performed (i.e.,
"[i]ncumbents have responsibility for one or more functions or services involving analysis of
problems equivalent to an entry-level analyst, which requires knowledge of basic principles of
the specific profession or technical field").
Similarly, the_ assistant IV position at the Davis campus has been used to cover a
range of administrative support activities in the electrical and computer engineering
department, including complex post-grant work ( over 250 grants and contracts), assisting in
the development of budgets for grant applications, assisting in long range budgetary planning
for the department, being the contact person for audit information, managing office space
utilization, and advising international students on visa regulations.
Custodian-of-record duties pertaining to medical records are assigned to _ 	assistant
Ill's at the UCSF campus. In this capacity, the incumbent compiles records in response to
court subpoenas, client-authorized requests from attorneys, and litigation-related requests from
third-party insurers for the University. On a weekly basis 60 to 70 requests are processed.
Determinations are required as to compliance with the terms of the request. Discretion enters
into the matter particularly when confidentiality rights are involved (e.g., HIV, psychiatric,
60

substance abuse information). In terms of consequence of error, the University may be liable
for improper release; however, the incumbent has been trained that he is to consult with a
supervisor when in doubt. Periodic training (typically a six-hour session) is required to keep
abreast of the changing requirements of the law. 	Documents are ordered from archive
facilities, scanned for confidential information, checked for completeness, and assembled for
production. The incumbent is a front-desk and call screener for incoming requests to
determine the validity of the patient authorizations. He had reported to an analyst for some
period of time prior to the freezing of that position. No Public Records Act request duties are
involved.
ISSUE
Is the work performed by the incumbents in the 14 bargaining unit positions proposed
for reclassification appropriate for inclusion in CUE's unit or appropriate for exclusion from
that unit?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A central issue in this case concerns the distinction between upper ievei _ 	assistant
work and work assigned to the lowest levels of the administrative staff professional
classifications. The University has proposed reclassifications of a number of positions into
classifications which it contends are functionally equivalent to positions for which a de facto
unit determination already exists (i.e., analyst, specialist, student affairs officer, program
representative, computer resource specialists) and others with individual campus titles (e.g.,
assistant to director, events coordinator, exhibits coordinator) which the University contends
are closely analogous to currently unrepresented titles (e.g., public events manager,
publications coordinator). Because the incumbents began in positions which involved clerical
work and have continued the same departmental or office work, the University builds its case
61

around the qualitative change in the nature of that work, as opposed to a strictly quantitative
change. From CUE's standpoint, there has been no qualitative change and the positions
continue in essence to involve bargaining unit work. CUE presented an array of_ assistant
positions performing work which it contends is indistinguishable from that performed in the
disputed classifications. CUE also contends that the _ 	assistant IV position, though not in use
at campuses where the proposed reclassifications exist, defines the upper limit of clerical work
in a manner which supports its claim to the positions.
The University notes that unlike a traditional unit modification case, neither party has
requested that existing classifications be moved from one unit to another and hence the
community of interest analysis is of more limited scope. The University contends that the
relevant inquiry is simply whether the job duties or the nature of the work required of the
position is "more similar" to the work performed by bargaining unit employees or those in the
administrative staff professionals unit29 or the technical unit. The University's petition is
brought pursuant to Regulation 32781 (b)(3), consistent with its view that the dispute involves
"new positions" rather than "new classifications."
CUE contends that none of the proposed positions are themselves professional positions
because they do not meet the definition under the statute for such.30 As a result, HEERA's
9 The University characterizes the "professional" classifications at issue in this case as
residing in its self-named "99-unit," a residual grouping of all unrepresented employees.
Although the difference is immaterial to the outcome, I employ the term administrative staff
professionals "unit" in the more limited sense as described herein.
30 Section 3562(0)(1) defines a professional employee, in relevant part, to be:
Any employee engaged in work: (A) predominantly intellectual
and varied in character as opposed to routine mental, manual,
mechanical, or physical work; (B) involving the consistent
exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance; (C) of a
character so that the output produced or the result accomplished
cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time; and
62

rebuttable presumption that they are not appropriately placed in the professionals unit must be
applied. In addition, CUE argues that there is a rebuttable presumption that every position is
appropriately assigned to the clerical unit because that it where it is presently located.
CUE's petition is brought pursuant to Regulation 32781(b)(2) to "clarify" the
boundaries
of
the unit. CUE's theory is that the University has "moved" clerical positions by
retitling them. (See Hemet Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 820.)
PERB's
approach in the Hemet case is useful as an illustration
of
the issues here. In that case, the
employer designated a number
of
employees as confidential, thereby excluding them from the
unit. The hearing officer undertook a position-by-position analysis to determine whether each
of
the positions met the statutory definition
of
"confidential." On appeal, the employer argued
that the individual analysis
of
positions was inappropriate and the determination should be
made on the basis
of
analysis
of
the classification district-wide. In rejecting the employer's
appeal, PERB first held that in cases where such matters come into dispute, it retains
jurisdiction over the dispute (in that case, in spite
of
the employer's claim that the issue was
determined by contractual language). PERB affirmed the position-by-position analysis and
rejected the employer's district-wide approach. (Id. at pp. 3-8.) PERB also found that the
"appropriateness
of
the unit" was not at issue, and therefore any purported absence
of
community
of
interest evidence was immaterial: the issue was simply whether any
of
the
positions were subject to exclusion from the unit based on their job duties. (Id. at p. 10.)
Unlike the Hemet case however, this case does not involve simple application
of
a
statutory standard for exclusion (e.g., confidential, supervisory, or managerial status). Here,
(D) requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science
or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of
specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of
higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a general
academic education or from an apprenticeship or from training in
the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes.
63

the issue is principally one of determining whether any of the positions is subject to exclusion
from the unit based on the relevant community of interest factors. 	That community of interest
analysis must be consistent with PERB' s guidance regarding demarcation of the units and the
University's historical practices in that regard.
Proceeding under that premise, I reject CUE's assertion that the current unit assignment
is presumptively valid because the positions are currently in the CX unit. The position is
currently in the CX unit because of the existing job title and a prior work history. As a result
of the reclassification proposal, including the revised job description, some change in the
duties of the position is presumed, though not necessarily proven. The issue then is whether
the position as revised justifies the University's attempt to exclude it from the unit, even
despite the fact that some portion of the work remains clerical in nature. This is
distinguishable from the case of the employer retitling a position without any presumed change
in job duties. (Cf. Regents of the University of California (1989) PERB Decision No. 722-H.)
These proceedings implicate reclassifications based on changes in duties or the composition of
duties. The University's reclassification process does not conflict with PERB's role in unit
determination, but neither does it suggest an initial presumption as to proper unit placement to
the benefit of either CUE or the University.
Section 3579(a)(l) prescribes the pertinent community of interest factors in unit
disputes, including but not limited to "the extent to which they perform functionally related
services or work toward established common goals, the history of employee representation
with the employer, the extent to which the employees belong to the same employee
organization, the extent to which the employees have common skills, working conditions, job
duties, or similar educational or training requirements, and the extent to which the employees
have common supervision." The analysis here emphasizes the nature of the job duties, skills
64

required, reporting relationships, and primary staff interactions as the operative community of
interest factors, while recognizing that the employees in many of the proposed professional
classifications continue to perform an administrative function similar to the original positions
and pursue goals very similar or even identical to those positions. In many cases, the
justification for reclassification rests on the acquisition of on-the-job training in the continuing
performance of similar duties, supplemented with outside educational work (but not the
acquisition of an advanced degree, the attribute which often provides a bright-line demarcation
for professional-level work under the statutory definition). I will now address these factors in
connection with the positions at issue.
The Analyst Positions
Peter Padilla, Marie Lim, Regina Hazlinger, Martha Thomas, and Jeanine Leary are
candidates for analyst positions. 31 Based on the testimony and documentary evidence, I find
that all incumbents are properly reclassified in positions outside of the clerical bargaining unit.
To one degree or another the proposed classifications positions reflect the devolution of
administrative functions from a manager to a support person imbued with independent
decisionmaking authority. They are characterized perhaps less by analytical work assigned on
a project-basis and more by ongoing responsibility for analyzing the success of the function
assigned and identifying interventions as appropriate.
The UCSF infectious disease department has assigned the work of overseeing the flow
of extramural support, ranging from a low of $1.5 to $8.5 million, to staff at the analyst level.
At the $2.3 million level, Padilla falls in the middle of this range. Padilla is no longer closely
Thomas' s reclassification documentation does not propose a specific classification
and the management witness conceded a lack of personal knowledge of the history of the
request. 	Of the classifications considered in this case, the analyst classification most
appropriately describes that position. The revised job description characterizes the 60-percent
duty as "records management/custodian of records/research and analysis." Liaison and
training constitute the next most important duties.
65

supervised on grant proposals as he once was; to the contrary, he plans all administrative
aspects
of
the
proposal-meaning
he conceptualizes that side
of
the proposal, leaving only the
scientific goals for his principal investigator to provide. Though it is true that the handling
of
pre-grant work does not necessarily have to be assigned outside
of
the clerical unit (relatively
simple, small-budget grants adhering in practice to a template model, for example, is properly
assigned within the unit), the grant preparation work
of
Padilla involves high-dollar budgets
(23 in total) that must be scrutinized and reconciled so as to fit within Dr. Rosenthal's ongoing
research enterprise. 	And though Padilla is an administrative generalist in terms
of
the various
functions related to support
of
research-covering equipment needs, staff human resources
issues, and post-grant
administration-it
seems clear that he is expected to discharge these
responsibilities without day-to-day consultation with, or approvals from, Dr. Rosenthal.
Further, though it may also be true that clerical employees also multi-task in their positions,
the level at which such activity occurs in Padilla's position is consistently intense and complex
as to warrant placement outside the unit. Intensity
of
the work is indicated by the fact that
Padilla performs functions related only to grant administration and no other office clerical
functions. 	Indicative
of
significant consequence for error, Padilla makes decisions on
purchasing without limitation as to cost.
None
of
the_
assistants involved in processing grant applications claimed to have
significant responsibility for identifying, analyzing and recommending untapped grant sources
to their principal investigator. They advised PI's on money available for equipment purchases,
though they did not investigate first-time purchases. Two _ 	assistants acknowledged their
decisionmaking was limited to purchases under $2,500 (consistent with the University's
supplemental guidelines for the _ 	assistant III); one of those adding that she received
instructions on high-dollar pieces.
66

Lim is assigned independent responsibility for directing one
of
the two training
programs in a large clinical department at the UCSF campus. Though the residency program
consists
of
7 5 house staff and the rotations are
of
greater duration, Lim' s clerkship program
consists
of
35 medical students and she does all
of
the scheduling, unlike the residency
program which has an analyst II assigned to handle that function. 	Both the residency
program's program manager and Lim report to director-level faculty members, immediately
under the department chair. On the operations side, Lim reports to the department's operations
manager, and she has multiple direct contact with course directors and hospital site directors.
As the clerkship program grew, the work was removed from an administrative assistant III
with 50-percent time responsibilities for administrative support to the faculty. 	The program
has avoided closure by achieving a critical mass, and it was suggested that Lim is responsible
for maintaining the viability
of
the program and thinking critically in terms
of
the department's
programmatic goals. 	She has student advising responsibilities taking place in the context
of
promoting the department as a place for residency training. 	Discretion has been delegated to
her in terms
of
filling out the class
of
students during the application process, analyzing the
student evaluations for the purpose
of
recommending ways to improve the quality
of
the
program, and rescheduling make-up sessions at the clinical sites based on completeness
of
the
training experience. 	Though some aspects
of
work are transactional (scheduling classes and
compiling evaluations), Lim is also responsible for making qualitative judgments so as to
maximize the benefit
of
the program to the students and enhance the benefit
of
the program to
the department's long range objectives. In addition, Lim is assigned a budget and expected to
meet the program's goals within those financial constraints.
The UC Davis OB/GYN residents coordinator is similar in many respects, though the
closeness of the positions is reflected by the assignment of those duties currently to a
67

_ 	assistant IV position. Still, there was no evidence the department expected the incumbent to
make recommendations on how to improve the quality of the rotations based on analysis of the
evaluations, to exercise independent judgment on make-up scheduling, or maintain the quality
of the program so as to ensure its viability. The UCSF family practice coordinator's position is
distinguishable from Lim's position in that there appears to be no expectation of quality
assurance for the program, and therefore it fits within the transactional character of clerical
positions.
Hazlinger' s position began when the environmental research institute was in its
formative period. She was the institute' s first employee other than the director position held
by her supervisor, Norbeck. A good portion of Hazlinger's work constitutes administrative
support, particularly that aspect of the work involving the logistical support for the national
and international conferences. Yet the evidence indicates that Norbeck has delegated
responsibility to Hazlinger to help determine the content of the conferences by having her
review the speaker abstracts and make recommendations as to which speakers to pursue. 	She
interacts with these speakers directly without Norbeck serving as the point of contact. Norbeck
relies on Hazlinger to prospect for funding opportunities, again speaking to her non-
transactional role in grant administration. Her post-award duties add the aspect of monitoring
progress toward the grant deliverables, and she is a party to conference calls between the
researchers and the funders in which these issues are discussed. 	Hazlinger' s creativity is
applied in terms of promoting the growth and development of the institute and its reputation
externally.
Hazlinger, Medina, and Lim's positions are distinguishable from the UC Berkeley
Chinese studies assistant. 	Though Levine does have recommendation authority on approval of
visiting scholar proposals, edits manuscripts, serves as a liaison with members of the public
68

(the visiting scholars), and engages in conference logistics planning activities, the higher level
duties do not predominate over the clerical ones. Hazlinger plans conferences but also has
influence in shaping the content
of
conferences.
Thomas's position is notable for the devolution
of
the Clery Act duties previously
performed by the chief
of
police who previously held the title
of
custodian
of
records. While
the work is characterized by recording transactions, considerably more is involved than simply
processing reports in conformity with established guidelines. For example, the department
expects her to determine the proper scoring
of
offenses by identifying duplicative criminal
charges in single incident
reports-work
that involves analysis
of
the criminal codes at the
level
of
a paralegal. 	She not only processes the individual incident reports, but in the nature
of
project-assigned work, develops the monthly and annual aggregated reports. Thomas has
direct contact with public law enforcement agencies outside
of
the University and exercises
independent judgment in responding to sensitive public record and Pitchess motion discovery
requests. 	She has training responsibilities for sergeants in the field and must exercise influence
over them to produce reports that conform to the FBI' s handbook, as she interprets it.
The UCSF records assistant is not required to exercise the same level
of
discretion as
Thomas. The analysis
of
subpoena and medical records requests emphasizes accuracy and
completeness
of
the response to the items requested, and though some judgment is required on
confidentiality issues, that discretion appears to be closely guided by written procedures.
Similar to Hazlinger' s position, Leary works in a small but growing unit. 	She once
performed the typical _ 	assistant duties
of
grant cost-accounting, processing
of
purchase
orders, travel arrangements and secretarial duties, but the consumer electronics department has
since hired a 	assistant to cover Leary's former duties. Leary's new position is one
of
resident information technology employee for the department. In its technical work, the
69

position is more akin to a computer resource specialist, though it is a blended one because of
the grant administration duties. The latter duties are at the upper end of the spectrum in terms
of complexity. They involve analysis of issues for the purpose of solving problems in expense
allocation, and again illustrate the devolution of analyst work away from central administration
to the department level.
More so perhaps than with the other classifications, the closeness of the issues
surrounding these positions stems from the University's own supplemental guidelines, heavily
relied upon by CUE, which reveal fair room for debate as to whether the work described here
falls within the upper reaches of the_ assistant series. For example, the campus guidelines,
designating the _ 	assistant III as the highest level, include language ("authority ... to act on
day-to-day operational decisions with minimum supervision"; "work with general guidelines
which may not be directly applicable ... "; "exercise originality to develop methods or
procedures to resolve recurring or unusual problems"; "problem-solving involves 'entry level
staff analysis"'; "searches for, evaluates and summarizes potential sources of funding for Pis
and transmits information to Pls"; "independently purchases non-standard items"; "administer
several complex contracts and grants with multiple fund sources"),32 suggesting the work
arguably could be assigned to the clerical unit. Nevertheless, the record as a whole,
particularly the placement of duties established by reference to the work of positions actually
described, does demarcate a sufficiently clear line so as to justify placement of these positions
outside the unit, and I conclude that such placement is consistent with these guidelines. 33
The Davis supplemental guidelines quoted from are from 1998, prior to establishment
ofthe 	assistant IV position.
33 A factor present in these positions, as well as many of the others described below, is
that the incumbents are not part of a team of clerical support employees. As noted in the
clerical unit hearing officer decision, if clerical employees are not supervised in a team by
another in the same classification series, they are supervised individually by a professional
70

The SAO Positions
Tesla Parrales and Walter Douglas are candidates for SAO positions. SAO's have
traditionally focused on professional level advising of the student body in connection with
admissions and degree attainment, as well as student life activities.
Parrales's position falls within the outlines of the SAO specifications in terms of the
requirement for judgment in matters of admissions, outreach, and academic progression. 	The
question in her case is whether that judgment involves professional level work. I find that it
does. 	Parrales trains, directs and supervises the work of the front-line public response staff and
ensures uniformity of advice consistent with campus policy. She is a work flow manager both
in terms of public responses and application files, signifying a high level of accountability.
She is also a reader of admissions applications. Her direct involvement in public responses is
limited to the specialized requests, such as those involving foreign transcripts and those where
it is necessary to resort to more specialized resources regarding course equivalencies.
Parrales' s focus on public response does not diminish the level of judgment required of her
position, because she does not provide readily available information. Her liaison duties with
other campus departments also embody higher level external relations responsibilities. Her
position is on par with the SAO's in the evaluation unit, where the staff concentrates on
analysis in the admission process. Her acquired knowledge regarding transcript evaluation
qualifies as specialized knowledge not expected of a clerical employee. I find she is
appropriately classified at the SAO level.
employee. In the proposed classifications, the incumbent typically reports not simply to a
professional employee, but the department head, director, MSO, or other high level
management position. That attribute speaks to the independent judgment and consultative role
expected of the position and the degree to which responsibility for an administrative function is
delegated.
71

Douglas's position, as the University concedes, does not neatly fit within the SAO
description, though it is perhaps the closest fit. 	That is so because the UC Riverside radio
station promotes the University's public service mission more so than its educational one.
Student radio hosts do receive a form of vocational and/or artistic training as broadcasters of
their radio shows and the activity itself supplements the student life experience for them.
Regardless, Douglas's position is characterized to a greater degree by his administrative
responsibility in overseeing the operations of the station. He is no longer merely an extension
of the station's director and general manager, working under close supervision. Douglas has
primary responsibility for the day-to-day activities of the station. Consequence of error is a
factor weighing heavily in favor of professional level work. 	So, too, is a level of professional
and artistic judgment involved in selecting programming for the station. While Douglas
reports to the director, he is more than just a first among equals at the station. I find that
Douglas is appropriately classified at the SAO level.
The Program Representative Position
Gloria Medina is a candidate for a program representative position. Program
representatives focus on curriculum implementation. The typical position deals with education
programs for the general public. Medina's program is for medical students and it is unclear
whether professional schools fall under the rubric of programs offered to the public. The most
likely conclusion is that they do not, but such a distinction is not critical. Program
representatives are required to fully understand the professional goals of the department and
they have a range of duties needed to implement a curriculum or program.
I find that Medina is appropriately classified at the program representative level. 	The
faculty and student liaison duties comprise 65 percent of her time. As the primary point of
contact with 160 faculty members, this is a position which necessarily embodies independence
72

and the ability to problem-solve without assistance. Medina's curriculum duties focusing on
syllabus preparation are situated within the broader category of work described as "course
administration." The scope of the syllabus project (preparation of a 2,000 page document)
coupled with the coordinative aspect (obtaining submissions from 160 faculty members)
demonstrates intensity and complexity of the project. Though the work of compiling the
syllabus itself suggests there is much production work of a clerical nature in the project as a
whole-and Medina is responsible for editing of the work-the nature of the subject matter,
physiology, which involves cellular biology and biochemistry, indicates a high level of mental
concentration necessary to proof the document and make the judgments necessary to achieve
consistency of format. 	Further, Medina has three_ assistants performing this work and
reporting to her. She supervises and evaluates these clericals, while she herself reports to the
department's MSO, working at a different location. 	Supervision, at 20-percent time, is the
second largest function of the position. Two other curriculum coordinators at the school of
medicine are placed at the analyst I level, a possible alternative classification for the position.34
I find Medina's position is appropriately classed outside of the clerical unit based on the
independence of judgment, nature of decisionmaking and analysis, complexity and intensity of
the work, and her supervision of other clericals.
Medina's curriculum coordination duties exist at a higher level than that of the Davis
OB/GYN position and the UCSF family practice positions, which focus on scheduling of
classes and do not involve the same intensity of work or supervision of others in preparation of
the syllabus.
3 Another professional unit classification, publications coordinator, is responsible for
the planning, scheduling and coordination of publications, editing, and effecting changes to
content and design.
73

The Administrative Specialist Positions
Leah Tamayo-Brion, Karen Stephens, and Nancy Keys are candidates for
administrative specialist positions. The administrative specialist position was envisioned as a
junior MSO position at the time it was created. Its focus is on management or supervision
of
the administrative processes
of
a department or unit. As used at some campuses it is akin to an
executive assistant covering a range
of
clerical duties, but confined to higher level executives
at the dean or vice chancellor level. In the latter respect, the specialist position rises to the
level
of
professional work through the application
of
discretion (for example, in the handling
of
sensitive matters) and the assignment
of
tasks involving research and analysis. I find that all
three incumbents are appropriately classified at the administrative specialist level.
Tamayo-Brion replaced a departing administrative specialist reporting to the MSO.
Other direct reports to the department's MSO (a specialist and an SAO) are professionals.
Tamayo-Brion was not placed at the specialist level initially because she was not fully
functional at that level, though there was an expectation that she would become proficient.
Tamayo-Brion appears to have obtained the required training to qualify as a specialist,
according to the department's standards. Tamayo-Brion's knowledge
of
the academic
professional advancement procedures qualifies as specialized knowledge. Expertise beyond
that expected of a clerical employee is required for overseeing the progression
of
the lecturers,
advising the chair as needed on these issues, and notifying the department
of
relevant changes
to the PPM. The level of confidence the department has in these skills is reflected in the
MS O's plan to delegate full management of the process to Tamayo-Brion. In preparing
personnel files for review by the chair, Tamayo-Brion analyzes the student evaluations for the
purpose of advising the chair on their content. Analytical work is reflected in her planning
activities related to matching projected class demand with instructional staffing, with attendant
74

consequences of error. Tamayo-Brion interacts directly with the MSO and department chair
and directs the work of two lower-level staff.
Stephens is assigned program coordination duties in an academic department whose
graduate program has grown to a level of sustainability. In contrast to Lim's position, which
has a similar history but emphasizes lecture and practicum scheduling, Stephens focuses on
advising graduate students, particularly around admissions. Because of the new and
interdisciplinary nature of the department, a significant amount of time is devoted to advising
students on their preparation and specialization which the department has to offer them.
Stephens's responsibility goes beyond answering routine questions. The department has also
delegated her a significant amount of responsibility in terms of screening applicants for the
program. 	Owing to her comprehensive review of the pool, she is a voting member of the
admissions committee. Her in-depth knowledge of the degree requirements allows her to
liaison with faculty advisors outside the department for students pursuing joint degrees. On the
undergraduate side, she has been assigned to complete the questionnaire for accreditation
review. 	While a good portion of her work, particularly that around monitoring student
progress and advising of a routine nature, is suited to assignment to a clerical position, her
primary role in the admissions process qualifies her as a professional unit employee.
Keys's position is another example of the devolution of an administrative function from
the vice-chancellor's level to the departmental level. Keys is the in-house expert on human
resources issues for the recreation department. The department is sufficiently large as an
organization serving many users that the work is varied and hence complex. The proposed
classification is comparable to two other human resource specialists in the student affairs
division. Keys must be knowledgeable about the requirements of all five MOU' s whose
bargaining units are represented. 	She interacts directly with the director, who relies on her to
75

advise him on all human resources matters. Keys is responsible for ensuring that all campus
employment policies are followed. 	Keys has independent decisionmaking responsibility.
Though she retains some work that is transactional in nature, the bulk
of
her duties is not
clerical.
The Academic Exhibits and Reservation Coordinator Positions
Ramon Smith and Burke Anderson are candidates for coordinator positions. Their
work is administrative in nature, and they both have been assigned sole responsibility for their
particular function.
Smith's position serves a marketing function for the University Press. It requires a
baccalaureate degree because
of
the need to sufficiently understand the content
of
scholarly
publications in order to make decisions about which books to display and to engage the authors
around book promotion. The principal role that Smith plays in the display
of
books at the
conventions is to manage the event and coordinate the logistics including making all staffing
decisions. While the elements
of
a successful display may have developed over time and are
capable
of
being reduced to writing, the work does not lend itself to characterization as routine
or transactional in nature. Smith is involved at a high staff level in terms
of
the participants at
the new title launch meeting. He is provided a budget with which he must accomplish the
goals
of
his assignment. There is sufficient evidence
of
independent decisionmaking to justify
placement
of
the position outside
of
the clerical unit.
Anderson is charged with maximizing the use
of
the Alumni Center, consistent with the
goals
of
the new strategic plan to expand the customer base. He brings his previously acquired
marketing skills to this task. Anderson is the primary contact representing the University in
relations with users from the public. Anderson, like Smith, is responsible for coordinating
staffing for events, much of which he delegates rather than performs. He is accountable for
76

compliance with all applicable building use codes and campus regulations. He is expected to
recommend policy changes as needed. He has delegated the routine aspects
of
the invoicing
work, but retains responsibility for resolving billing disputes with the users. Anderson
exercises discretion
of
a non-prescriptive nature and is expected to work independently. His
position bears similarities to the public events manager position. The majority
of
Anderson's
work is not clerical in nature.
The Computer Resource Specialist Position
Christopher Hall's vacant position is proposed for reclassification to a computer
resource specialist position, which is found in the technical unit. Technical employees use
independent judgment and exercise specialized skills. Assignments must be complex and the
level
of
responsibility must be significant.
The proposed reclassification is designed to fill one
of
the project's two IT employees.
The vacated position was held at the program analyst IV level. Though Hall's position was
assigned administrative duties such as scheduling staff, some
of
that work has been removed to
permit 70-percent time devoted to IT support. The IT work described includes the full range
of
network administration, including installation
of
new systems and maintenance
of
database
systems. The work satisfies the requirements
of
specialized skills in a technical field.
CUE's "Blank" Assistant IV Proposal
The findings made that all
of
the positions at issue are properly reclassified as non-
bargaining unit positions for all intents and purposes disposes
of
CUE' s request that the
positions be placed at the _ 	assistant IV level. The question presented here is simply whether
the majority of the work in each position is clerical bargaining unit work or not, as determined
by the parties' MOU language establishing PERB as the dispute arbiter. It is beyond the scope
of this hearing to decide that the _ 	assistant IV position is a more appropriate classification
77

for the work of the incumbent described, without first having found the work is clerical in
nature. Stated differently, CUE's petition cannot serve to reshape the boundaries of its unit by
redefining what is meant by clerical work in the absence of a classification-based community
of interest analysis not made here. Having found that each of the positions qualifies to serve in
a position outside the bargaining unit, I must deny CUE's petition.
While CUE argues that the various classifications into which the University seeks to
reclassify the incumbents do not entail the work of a professional employee, as the term is
defined under section 3562(0)(1), for the purpose of invoking a presumption to aid its case, I
find it unnecessary to decide that issue. As noted above, the classifications into which the
University has proposed incumbents be moved are located outside of CUE's unit for purposes
of deciding this case. For this reason, I have not applied any presumption in favor of placing
the employees within the clerical bargaining unit. (See John P. Scripps Newspaper Corp.
(1999) 329 NLRB 854 [unit clarification proceedings framed by the existing definition of the
unit, which also provides the initial presumption].) The findings in this case are based on
review of the totality of evidence, together with PERB 's guidance delineating the boundaries
of the competing units and the historical contours of those units.
Conclusion
Based on all of the evidence submitted for this record, I find that the 14 positions at
issue share a greater community of interest with employees in non-clerical bargaining units and
therefore are properly reclassified in positions outside of the clerical and allied services
bargaining unit.
PROPOSED ORDER
For the above reasons and based upon the entire record in this case, it is hereby ordered
that the petition of the Regents of the University of California (case no. SF-UM-620-H) is
78

granted with respect to the positions at issue and the petition of Coalition of University
Employees (SF-UM-621-H) is denied.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this
Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32300.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a), 32130; see also Gov. Code,
§ 11020, subd. (a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile
transmission before the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements of California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32135,
subdivision (d), provided the filing party also places the original, together with the required
number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32135,
subds. (b), (c), (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32090, 32130.)
~"'-
Donn Ginoza
Administrative Law Judge
79