Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools (PERB 2879E)

UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES,
Charging Party,
v.
ALLIANCE COLLEGE-READY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-6728-E
PERB Decision No. 2879
October 23, 2023
Appearances: Bush Gottlieb by Erica Deutsch and Dexter Rappleye, Attorneys, for
United Teachers Los Angeles; ACLIENT by Ruben Escalante and Robert Escalante,
Attorneys, for Alliance College-Ready Public Schools.
Before Banks, Chair; Krantz and Paulson, Members.
DECISION
BANKS, Chair: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) for decision based on a stipulated record, pursuant to PERB
Regulations 32215 and 32320, subdivision (a)(1).1 We previously certified United
Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) as the exclusive representative of two separate
bargaining units of certificated employees at Alliance Morgan McKinzie High School
(Morgan McKinzie) and Alliance Leichtman-Levine Family Foundation Environmental
Science and Technology High School (Leichtman-Levine) (collectively, Charter
Schools). (Alliance Morgan McKinzie High School et al. (2022) PERB Order
1 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

2
No. Ad-491 (Alliance III).) The Charter Schools are two of 25 schools within the
Alliance College-Ready Public Schools Network (Alliance Network). As a result of
UTLA’s certification as the exclusive representative, Respondent Alliance
College-Ready Public Schools (Alliance)2 became obligated, pursuant to the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), to recognize and meet and negotiate
in good faith with UTLA.3 (EERA, § 3543.5, subd. (c).)
In this case, UTLA alleges that the Charter Schools have refused to recognize
and bargain with UTLA as the exclusive representative of their certificated employees,
in violation of the Board’s order in Alliance III, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-491. The
Charter Schools admit they have refused to recognize and bargain with UTLA as the
exclusive representative of their respective employees. They contend, however, that
the Board wrongly decided Alliance III and that changed circumstances, namely, a
corporate reorganization, render the certified units inappropriate. We conclude that the
reorganization does not affect the appropriateness of the units, nor does it excuse the
Charter Schools from recognizing or meeting and negotiating with UTLA.
2 Alliance underwent a corporate reorganization during the pendency of UTLA’s
representation petitions, detailed post at pp. 7-10. For this reason, in Alliance Judy
Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School et al. (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809
(Alliance II) [judicial appeal pending], UTLA requested an amended certification
pursuant to PERB Regulation 32761, subdivision (a) naming the new corporate entity
as the employer required to recognize and bargain with UTLA. We found it appropriate
to amend the certification because “an amendment in certification changes only the
name of the employer or union—it does not change the contours of the bargaining
units.” (Id. at p. 29.) UTLA’s unfair practice charge in the instant matter likewise names
this new corporate entity as the employer.
3 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. All further
undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.

3
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY4
UTLA’s Organizing Efforts
UTLA is an employee organization within the meaning of EERA section 3540.1,
subdivision (d). UTLA began organizing certificated employees at charter schools
affiliated with the Alliance Network as early as March 13, 2015. During this organizing
period, UTLA filed multiple unfair practice charges alleging Alliance-affiliated schools
engaged in numerous unfair labor practices. The Board has sustained allegations
against Alliance-affiliated schools in four decisions. (See Alliance College-Ready
Public Schools et al. (2017) PERB Decision No. 2545; Alliance College-Ready Public
Schools et al. (2020) PERB Decision No. 2716; Alliance Environmental Science and
Technology High School et al. (2020) PERB Decision No. 2717; Alliance Marc & Eva
Stern Math & Science High School et al. (2021) PERB Decision No. 2795 [judicial
appeal pending].) In litigating the first of these cases, Alliance College-Ready Public
Schools, supra, PERB Decision No. 2545, the respondent schools contended that
each was functionally autonomous. (See Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719,
pp. 13-15 [describing prior representations as to the schools’ autonomy].) Based on
4 As we discuss further post, this case arises from nearly identical facts as
those in Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809, and Alliance III, supra, PERB
Order No. Ad-491. The parties agreed, with the administrative law judge’s (ALJ)
approval, to enter into the record in this case proposed stipulations and a proposed
stipulated record that includes the pleadings, documents, and prior administrative
records from Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School et al. (2020)
PERB Decision No. 2719 (Alliance I) [judicial appeal pending] and Alliance II. We
therefore draw the Factual and Procedural Summary in significant part from those
decisions.

4
these representations, UTLA refocused its organizing strategy from a campaign
seeking a single, network-wide unit to one focused on single school units.
To date, UTLA has filed five representation petitions in total at Alliance-affiliated
schools, which we detail below.
The Initial Three Representation Petitions
On May 3, 2018, UTLA filed three separate petitions seeking recognition as the
exclusive representative for bargaining units consisting of the certificated employees
at Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School (Burton Tech), Alliance
College-Ready Middle Academy No. 5 (Middle 5), and Alliance Gertz-Ressler/Richard
Merkin 6-12 Complex (Gertz/Merkin). UTLA provided proof of majority support from
employees at the respective school with each petition.
In June 2018, after receiving a list of all employees in the petitioned-for units,
PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) issued administrative determinations
finding that a majority of the employees supported each of UTLA’s petitions. Pursuant
to PERB Regulation 33190, OGC informed the three schools that they must recognize
UTLA or file a statement contesting the appropriateness of the unit. Thereafter, each
of the schools filed a statement refusing to recognize UTLA and disputing the
appropriateness of the petitioned-for units. The schools claimed: “The minimum
appropriate unit is a single unit encompassing all similar personnel employed at
schools within the network of charter schools affiliated with Alliance College-Ready
Public Schools (the ‘Alliance Network’), not an individual unit that includes only [each
charter school’s] employees.” The schools requested that PERB investigate and hold
a hearing to determine the appropriateness of the units. These three representation

5
petitions were later at the core of Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, and a
related unfair practice charge in Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809, as we
discuss post.
The Subsequent Two Representation Petitions
On April 9, 2019, UTLA filed two separate petitions seeking recognition as the
exclusive representative for bargaining units consisting of the certificated employees
at Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine. Along with the petitions, UTLA provided
OGC with proof of majority support from employees at both schools.
On May 7, 2019, OGC issued administrative determinations finding that UTLA
had submitted sufficient proof of support for each proposed bargaining unit. The
administrative determinations advised the Charter Schools that, because UTLA
evidenced majority support and no valid intervention had been filed, they were
required to recognize the proposed bargaining units unless they doubted the
appropriateness of the units.
On May 13, 2019, the Charter Schools denied recognition in both cases,
asserting as it did with the previous three petitions that the Alliance Network schools
operate as a single employer and that, pursuant to the statutory presumption in EERA
section 3545, subdivision (b)(1), the only presumptively appropriate unit was a
network-wide one. Arguing that UTLA had not rebutted this presumption, the Charter
Schools contended that the single school units were inappropriate. The Charter
Schools requested that PERB investigate this issue pursuant to EERA section 3544.5
and hold a hearing on the matter. Later that month, the parties agreed to place the

6
Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine petitions in abeyance pending the Board’s
decision on the initial three petitions.
At the time the Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine petitions were filed,
each school’s charter declared:
“[The Charter School] is deemed the exclusive public
school employer of all employees of the charter school for
collective bargaining purposes. As such, Charter School
shall comply with all provisions of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (‘EERA’), and shall act
independently from [Los Angeles Unified School District] for
collective bargaining purposes. In accordance with the
EERA, employees may join and be represented by an
organization of their choice for collective bargaining
purposes.”
The Alliance Network and Its Reorganization
When UTLA filed the petitions for recognition at Morgan McKenzie and
Leichtman-Levine, the Charter Schools were separately incorporated as nonprofit
public benefit corporations with separate boards of directors, articles of incorporation,
and bylaws.5 Each individual corporation held a separate charter with the Los Angeles
5 As of the date UTLA filed its representation petitions, the Charter Schools had
Administrative Services Agreements (ASAs) with a separately incorporated nonprofit
charter management organization, Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools (Alliance
CMO or Home Office). The ASAs required Alliance CMO “to provide a range of
operational and managerial services, including human resources services, information
technology support, and all other services reasonably requested, in exchange for a
service fee.” (Alliance College-Ready Public Schools et al., supra, PERB Decision
No. 2716, pp. 6-7.) In Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School et
al., supra, PERB Decision No. 2717, the parties stipulated to the fact that Alliance
CMO acted as the agent of the schools in certain instances, which was the basis for
our finding the schools liable for the actions of the Alliance CMO and its high-ranking
official. (Id. at pp. 4-6.)

7
Unified School District (LAUSD) to operate within the boundaries of the district. Those
charters declared each individual corporation to be the “exclusive public school
employer of all employees of the charter school” for collective bargaining purposes
pursuant to Education Code section 47611.5, subdivision (b).
At all relevant times, LAUSD policy has required charter schools in the district
to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act, § 54950 et seq.), California Public
Records Act (CPRA, § 6250 et seq.), and conflict of interest laws (Gov. Code, § 1090
et seq.). (LAUSD, Policy for Charter School Authorizing (approved January 12, 2010,
revised February 7, 2012), p. 8 [“Charter schools shall comply with conflict of interest
laws . . . A charter school is also responsible for complying with the Ralph M. Brown
Act and the California Public Records Act”].) Pursuant to this policy, the Charter
Schools declared in their charters that they would comply with the requirements of
those laws.
In the midst of the representation proceedings, and prior to the Board’s
issuance of Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, the Alliance Network changed
its structure, purportedly in response to the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 126, which
would take effect on January 1, 2020.6 According to Alliance Chief of Staff Zainab Ali,
Alliance CMO and the Alliance-affiliated schools “analyzed legal-compliance
6 SB 126 added section 47604.1 to the Education Code, making explicit the
application of the Brown Act, CPRA, Government Code section 1090 et seq., and the
Political Reform Act (Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq.), to California public charter schools.
Prior to the enactment of SB 126, on December 26, 2018, the California Attorney
General published an opinion stating that under existing law, charter schools were
subject to the Brown Act, CPRA, Government Code § 1090, and the Political Reform
Act. (101 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 92 (2018).)

8
implications of the law given the day-to-day operations of the organization given the
passage of SB 126, and ultimately decided” to merge into a single legal entity.7
Alliance contends that at a minimum, the reorganization enhanced the network’s
ability to comply with the law because the reorganized entity can hold a single,
regular, public board meeting to accomplish what previously occurred through
meetings of 25 different school boards for each of the Alliance schools. Alliance also
contends that the reorganization helps it to avoid disputes regarding purported
conflicts inherent in the integrated operations between Home Office and the Alliance
Network. In support of these contentions, Alliance claims that SB 126 placed new
requirements upon the Charter Schools, beyond those required by LAUSD policy.
On September 18, 2019, while Alliance II was before the Board for decision,
Alliance sent a letter to the Board stating that it had decided to merge all
Alliance-affiliated schools into a single legal entity, effective January 1, 2020. In
Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, we noted that respondents did not provide
information about the circumstances of the reorganization or make any argument
about what effect, if any, the reorganization had on the pending representation
7 According to Ali, Alliance had considered a possible reorganization in the
past, as early as the end of 2016, in response to Assembly Bill (AB) 1478, a bill similar
to SB 126 that did not become law. Ali claimed that, after AB 1478 failed to pass, “the
urgency of this transition was reduced.” In light of Alliance’s repeatedly shifting
positions with respect to UTLA’s representation petitions, we decline to credit Ali’s
sworn testimony about the initial timing of Alliance’s reorganization. In any event, this
finding is not determinative as, even had Alliance begun contemplating a merger as
early as 2016, Alliance did not notify the Board of it until late 2019, detailed further
below.

9
petitions, or request to reopen or augment the record to include the letter or any other
evidence concerning the reorganization. (Id. at p. 27, fn. 27.)
On September 24 and December 12, 2019, LAUSD held special board
meetings to consider Alliance’s reorganization. At the September board meeting,
Alliance Chief Executive Officer Dan Katzir stated to school board members that the
proposed reorganization was not linked to UTLA’s unionization campaign, and that it
was up to PERB to decide the issues related to unionization, which would not be
based upon the school board’s decision regarding the reorganization.
On January 1, 2020, all 25 Alliance schools and Home Office became one
entity, Alliance College-Ready Public Schools.8 Several changes ensued with the
reorganization. Home Office and the Alliance schools ceased to be governed by
separate boards of directors or managed by separate officers. Instead, Home Office
and the Alliance schools are a single legal entity governed by a single governing
board and a group of executives, with the sole authority to engage in collective
bargaining and “to approve any collective bargaining agreement entered into by the
Alliance.”
Prior to the reorganization, the schools’ charter petitions stated that each school
“is deemed the exclusive public school employer of all employees of the charter
school for collective bargaining purposes.” After the reorganization took effect, the
schools’ charters stated that each school “hereby declares that Charter School,
8 The newly merged entity is also referred to as the “Surviving Organization”
and is distinct from Home Office, which was Alliance for College-Ready Public
Schools.

10
operated as or by its nonprofit public benefit corporation, is and shall be the exclusive
public school employer of Charter School’s employees for the purposes of [EERA] . . .”
As a result of the reorganization, Alliance’s liabilities, obligations, and assets
are now held collectively by Alliance. Alliance continues to provide centralized support
to Alliance-affiliated schools. Alliance has authority to review or reverse a school’s
decision to discipline or terminate a teacher, or to authorize an employee to “depart
from networkwide policies or practices.” This includes the policy of not hiring
employees who were previously terminated for performance-related reasons or for
misconduct at another Alliance school.
Also following the reorganization, the schools’ principals report to their
respective Instructional Superintendents, ceasing the practice of reporting directly to
their individual school’s board of directors. Instructional Superintendents are assigned
to oversee non-overlapping cohorts of the Alliance schools and directly supervise
each of the principals in their respective cohorts. Prior to January 1, 2020,
Instructional Superintendents were employed by Home Office and, after January 1,
2020, they are employed by Alliance. Additionally, Home Office and schools no longer
utilize separate Employer Identification Numbers (EIN) when reporting to state and
federal agencies, but instead utilize a single EIN. Finally, Alliance adopted an
Intracompany Service Agreement, replacing individual ASAs between the Alliance
CMO and Network schools.
The Board Issues Alliance I
On May 18, 2020, the Board issued Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719,
certifying UTLA as the exclusive representative of certificated employee bargaining

11
units at Burton Tech, Middle 5, and Gertz/Merkin. In reaching its findings, the Board
took administrative notice of the records from several unfair practice cases litigated
prior to the filing of the representation petitions.9 (Id. at p. 2, fn. 3.) In those prior
cases, Alliance CMO and the three schools vigorously disputed the notion that the
schools were part of any integrated operation and made statements that were
inconsistent with the schools’ later claims at the representation hearing regarding their
alleged integration. (Id. at pp. 13-15.) The Alliance I Board considered and rejected
Alliance’s arguments that the schools constituted a single employer and that the only
appropriate unit was a network-wide unit. (Id. at pp. 22-36, 44-48.)
In so doing, the Board found that Alliance’s prior representations regarding
each school’s individual autonomy warranted application of judicial and equitable
estoppel, since UTLA had relied on Alliance’s past positions when deciding to
organize on a school-by-school basis. The Board further found that Alliance’s
inconsistent representations regarding the schools’ autonomy rendered Alliance’s
arguments unpersuasive, and that individual certificated bargaining units at each
school were appropriate. (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, pp. 33-48.)
Based on these findings, the Board therefore certified UTLA as the exclusive
representative of a certificated employee unit at each of the three charter schools,
retroactive to the date of the filing of the petitions. On June 12, 2020, respondents
filed a Request for Reconsideration of Alliance I, along with a Request for Judicial
Review. On October 14, 2020, the Board denied both requests. (Alliance Judy Ivie
9 The records were from PERB Case Numbers LA-CE-6061-E, LA-CE-6073-E,
LA-CE-6165-E, and LA-CE-6204-E.

12
Burton Technology Academy High School et al. (2020) PERB Decision No. 2719a;
Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School et al. (2020) PERB Order
No. JR-30.)
The Board Issues Alliance II
Following UTLA’s certification as the exclusive representative for the
certificated employee bargaining units at Burton Tech, Middle 5, and Gertz/Merkin,
UTLA requested that the schools formally recognize it as the exclusive representative
at each school. Alliance refused, stating that it did not consider UTLA to be the
exclusive representative of its certificated employees, and “therefore shall not engage
in bargaining with UTLA absent further guidance from the appellate courts.”
The dispute ultimately gave rise to Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809.
In that decision, the Board concluded that Burton Tech, Middle 5, and Gertz/Merkin
had unlawfully refused to recognize or bargain with UTLA as the exclusive
representative of their certificated employees, in contravention of the Board’s order in
Alliance I. The Board rejected the schools’ argument that Alliance’s corporate
reorganization affected the appropriateness of the certified bargaining units or
excused the schools from recognizing or negotiating with UTLA. The Board ordered
each of the three schools to recognize and bargain with UTLA as the exclusive
representative of their certificated employees.
The Board Issues Alliance III
Days after the Board issued Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, UTLA
requested that PERB remove from abeyance its representation petitions for Morgan
McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine and certify UTLA as the exclusive representative at

13
both schools. UTLA argued that the schools were collaterally estopped from
relitigating the issue of whether single schools constitute appropriate bargaining units,
as the issue had been resolved in Alliance I. Subsequently, the parties, with the
assistance of a PERB ALJ, met to discuss the petitions. The cases remained in
abeyance pending these discussions. On November 24, 2020, UTLA again requested
PERB remove the instant cases from abeyance and requested that UTLA be certified
as the exclusive bargaining representative based on collateral estoppel. On December
9, 2020, the Alliance Network, on behalf of the Charter Schools, opposed UTLA’s
request, claiming that it did not meet the collateral estoppel elements. On December
11, 2020, UTLA replied to Alliance Network’s opposition, arguing that Alliance was not
entitled to a hearing where the Board’s investigation finds there is no material issue as
to the appropriateness of the unit.
On April 28, 2021, OGC issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) as to why the
petitions should not be granted. On May 20, 2021, the Charter Schools responded to
the OSC and filed a supporting declaration of Alliance Chief of Staff Ali. On June 11,
2021, UTLA filed a response in support of the OSC. On August 13, 2021, after finding
that UTLA had provided proof of majority support at each Charter School, OGC issued
an administrative determination granting the petitions, which the Charter Schools
timely appealed.
On March 23, 2022, the Board issued Alliance III, supra, PERB Order
No. Ad-491.The Board concluded that, for the reasons set forth in Alliance I and
affirmed in Alliance II, it did not need to hold another hearing to find that single school
units are appropriate. (Alliance III, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-491, pp. 13-15.) In

14
doing so, the Board explicitly rejected the Charter Schools’ argument that collateral
estoppel did not apply, as the same parties had already litigated the precise issue at
stake, and there were no material factual differences. (Id. at p. 15.) In the alternative,
and in the interests of administrative economy, the Board reviewed the parties’
submissions de novo and found that the petitioned-for units were appropriate on the
merits. (Ibid.) The Board therefore upheld the administrative determination and
certified UTLA as the exclusive representative of certificated employees at Morgan
McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine. (Id. at p. 21.)
Alliance’s Latest Refusal to Recognize or Bargain with UTLA
Within six months after the Board issued Alliance III, supra, PERB Order
No. Ad-491, UTLA again requested recognition from the Charter Schools as the
exclusive representative of employees in the requested bargaining units and
demanded to commence bargaining for new contracts. Alliance again refused, stating
that it intended to seek appellate review of Alliance III pursuant to EERA section 3542
and therefore would not bargain with UTLA “absent further guidance from the
appellate courts.”10
10 On July 14, 2022, Alliance filed a unit modification petition (PERB Case
No. LA-UM-1027-E) to “challenge” the Board’s order in Alliance III, supra, PERB Order
No. Ad-491 “by virtue of changed circumstances that accompanied a change in the
law and consequent merger of 25 charter schools (effective 1/1/2020), which included
the employers previously recognized by PERB in [Alliance II] into a single legal entity.”
Alliance again argued that the “only appropriate unit” would be network-wide and
inclusive of more than 750 employees. OGC issued an OSC why the petition should
not be dismissed, in light of the 12-month certification bar in PERB Regulation 32786,
subdivision (b)(4), in addition to the petition’s failure to satisfy any criteria in PERB
Regulation 32781, subdivision (b). Alliance timely responded. On September 26,

15
On July 27, 2022, UTLA filed the underlying unfair practice charge alleging that
the Charter Schools had unlawfully refused to recognize and bargain with UTLA
following the Board’s order in Alliance III, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-491. On July 29,
2022, OGC issued a complaint alleging that Alliance refused to recognize or bargain
with UTLA following its certification as the exclusive representative of the Charter
Schools. On August 10, 2022, Alliance answered the complaint, mostly admitting to
the allegations, explaining that it engaged in the disputed conduct to obtain judicial
review of Alliance III, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-491, and citing several affirmative
defenses including “changed or special circumstances.”
On September 13, 2022, the parties entered into the record proposed
stipulations and a proposed stipulated record that includes the pleadings, documents,
and prior administrative records from Alliance I and Alliance II. On December 22,
2022, the parties convened for a prehearing video conference with the ALJ, during
which they agreed that the parties’ stipulations and stipulated record constitute the
evidentiary portion of the case. In addition, the ALJ took administrative notice of the
parties’ post-hearing and reply briefs from Alliance I. The parties filed their
2022, OGC dismissed the unit modification petition. Alliance did not appeal the
dismissal.
On December 27, 2022, Alliance requested that the ALJ take administrative
notice of certain records in PERB Case No. LA-UM-1027-E. UTLA objected, arguing
that the records were not relevant to the instant matter, although it did not contest the
veracity of the records. On January 14, 2023, the ALJ granted Alliance’s request,
while allowing all parties the opportunity to argue relevance or lack thereof. To the
extent Alliance challenges the dismissal of the unit modification petition in its post-
hearing brief, we decline to consider such arguments as they are not properly before
us, as we explain post at pp. 21-22.

16
post-hearing briefs on March 16, 2023, and filed their reply briefs on March 30, 2023.
On April 7, 2023, the record for the instant matter was submitted directly to the Board
itself for decision, pursuant to PERB Regulation 32320, subdivision (a)(1).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Technical Refusal to Bargain
As we have already noted, Alliance admits that it failed and refused to bargain
in good faith with UTLA to obtain judicial review of the Board’s unit determination in
Alliance III, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-491. While EERA section 3542, subdivision
(a)(2) permits a party to obtain appellate review of a unit determination by engaging in
a technical refusal to bargain, a party’s right to do so is limited in several respects.
As we stated in Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809, a party engaged in
a technical refusal to bargain must rely on evidence already in the administrative
record of the unit determination, because the prior representation decision is treated
as binding with respect to all issues that were, or could have been, litigated in the
representation proceeding. (Id. at p. 13; Regents of the University of California (2019)
PERB Decision No. 2646-H, pp. 4-6.) A party may not collaterally attack PERB’s
determination using evidence that it could have raised in the unit determination
proceeding, nor may it use the technical refusal as an attempt to modify a unit while
circumventing PERB’s mandatory unit modification procedure. (Regents of University
of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 159, 174 &
fns. 4 and 5; Regents of the University of California, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2646-H, pp. 4-5, citing Los Angeles Unified School District (2007) PERB Decision
No. 1884, p. 2.) Because a respondent in a technical refusal case should admit it is

17
refusing to comply with the underlying representation order, PERB can normally grant
judgment on the pleadings to resolve a technical refusal to bargain.11 (Alliance II,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2809, p. 15.)
Moreover, a party engaging in a technical refusal takes on several risks aside
from the risk of work stoppage or other consequences of labor strife. First, as in any
case before it, PERB can issue litigation sanctions if any party takes a frivolous
position in bad faith. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision
No. 2749, p. 11; see also Bellflower Unified School District (2019) PERB Order
No. Ad-475a, p. 4.) Second, even when there is no cause for litigation sanctions, if an
employer pursues an unsuccessful technical refusal over a unit determination, the
charging party union may be entitled to reimbursement of its increased costs outside
of litigating the technical refusal charge, which may include increased costs for
11 In Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809, we rejected Alliance’s
argument that PERB should follow private sector precedent allowing for the
consideration of an employer’s reorganization as a defense to its technical refusal to
bargain. (Id. at pp. 17-22.) We noted that, while PERB declined to follow private sector
precedent with respect to this matter, even if we were to consider the persuasive value
of Frito-Lay, Inc. (1969) 177 NLRB 820, the Alliance II facts stood in “stark contrast.”
(Alliance II, supra, p. 20.) In Frito-Lay, Inc., the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) dismissed a charge alleging the employer’s failure to bargain because the unit
was no longer appropriate following a reorganization. The NLRB explained that one of
the reasons for its decision was that the employer’s reorganization had eliminated “the
essential factor which made” the unit appropriate. (177 NLRB at p. 821.) In contrast,
Alliance’s reorganization did not affect the “essential factor” that was the basis for the
certification of the units in Alliance I. (Alliance II, supra, p. 20.) The same holds true in
the instant matter with respect to the certification of units in Alliance III, and we
therefore decline to revisit this argument.

18
organizing, bargaining, lost dues, or legal costs beyond litigating the charge itself.
(City of Palo Alto (2019) PERB Decision No. 2664-M, p. 8, fn. 6.)12
Alliance’s principal argument is twofold: that the Board improperly certified the
units under the facts initially presented in Alliance III, and that changed or special
circumstances warrant reconsideration of the units certified therein. As to the first
assertion, there is no need to address Alliance’s arguments based on the evidence in
the Alliance III record as the Board already rejected them. (See Alliance III, supra,
PERB Order No. Ad-491, pp. 13-21; see also Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2719, pp. 22-48.) As noted above, when an employer engages in a technical
refusal to bargain, our practice normally requires us to expedite judicial review by
granting judgment on the pleadings at all levels of PERB, treating the prior
representation decision as binding with respect to all issues that were, or could have
been litigated in the representation proceeding. (Regents of the University of
California, supra, PERB Decision No. 2646-H, pp. 4-6.)
For this reason, we again decline to revisit Alliance’s arguments that PERB was
required to both find the Charter Schools were a single employer and to extend
12 Different considerations apply when an employer’s technical refusal is based
on good faith allegations of conduct that prevented a fair election and was sufficiently
serious to “have affected the outcome of the election.” (J.R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural
Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 26 Cal.3d 1, 40.) Because we encourage judicial review of
allegations concerning an election’s fairness, make-whole relief for a technical refusal
to bargain raising such issues is appropriate only in the absence of any good faith
allegation of conduct or circumstances impacting election integrity to a degree that
could have been dispositive in the outcome. (Ibid.) These considerations do not apply
where, as here, a respondent merely disputes PERB’s exercise of discretion in
determining whether a union has petitioned for an allowable unit structure.

19
California Virtual Academies (2016) PERB Decision No. 2484 to mean that whenever
a single employer relationship exists, there is only one allowable unit structure.13 We
already explained in Alliance I and recounted in Alliance II and Alliance III multiple
independent reasons why each assumption in this syllogism is incorrect.
First, we will not revisit the argument that we erred by rejecting the applicability
of the single employer doctrine. As we explained in Alliance I, the outcome of a single
employer inquiry does not necessarily determine unit appropriateness, and the Board
has never “looked beyond the plain language of the petition to decide whether two or
more public school employers satisfy the single employer test and, if so, whether that
relationship requires that we allow only a singular global bargaining unit despite the
petitioning union’s request for localized bargaining units.” (Alliance I, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2719, pp. 22-23, 27.) Nor will we revisit the argument that we erred by
applying judicial and equitable estoppel, and by finding sufficient evidence to justify
single school bargaining units.14 As explained in Alliance I, the Charter Schools failed
to prove that only a network-wide unit is appropriate since the evidence the Charter
Schools presented “was directly contradicted by evidence in prior cases from Alliance
personnel, including key executives and charter school administrators,” and “the
Charter Schools have not given a reasonable or persuasive account of their shifting
positions.” (Id. at pp. 34, 44.) Finally, we do not repeat the reasons why Alliance’s
interpretation that a single unit is the only appropriate unit when the single employer
13 Alliance also made this argument in Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2809. We rejected the argument there (id. at p. 15), as we do here.
14 We address Alliance’s new collateral estoppel argument post.

20
test is satisfied, was a “constraining interpretation” that was “a bridge too far” in a case
that presented a very different factual scenario.15 (Id. at p. 26.)
II. 	Alliance’s Claimed New Evidence
While Alliance has repeatedly asserted that it is engaged in a technical refusal
to bargain, it nevertheless relies on what it purports is new evidence. Alliance claims
that “changed circumstances,” demonstrated through new evidence, is a valid ground
for a technical refusal to bargain. This argument is, first, based on a faulty premise.
Alliance’s allegedly new evidence—its corporate reorganization—existed before
Alliance I issued on May 18, 2020. The reorganization occurred after the filing of the
representation petitions and evidentiary hearing in Alliance I but became effective
more than five months before Alliance I issued. Alliance informed PERB about the
planned reorganization in its September 2019 letter, but decided not to provide UTLA
or PERB with details about the new structure, file a motion to reopen the record, or
provide any supplemental briefing, including as to its claimed impact on the pending
petitions. Therefore, evidence of the reorganization is not newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence. Rather, it is evidence that Alliance could have
15 Alliance’s demonstrated history of anti-union speech in the course of UTLA’s
organizing campaign further undermines its credibility in arguing for a network-wide
unit structure. (See Alliance Marc & Eva Stern Math & Science High School et al.,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2795, pp. 52-75 [finding that e-mails from multiple Alliance-
affiliated principals and assistant principals to certificated employees at their
respective schools violated the Prohibition on Public Employers Deterring or
Discouraging Union Membership, Government Code section 3550 et seq. because the
communications tended to influence whether or not employees supported UTLA].)

21
introduced in the underlying unit determination proceeding, and it is therefore not an
appropriate defense to its technical refusal to bargain.
Moreover, to the extent Alliance claims true changed circumstances consistent
with PERB Regulation 32781, i.e., evidence that did not exist when Alliance I issued,
the Board noted in Alliance II that respondents could not simply refuse to bargain; they
were instead required to pursue a unit modification petition under PERB Regulation
32781.16 (Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809, pp. 17-18 & 23.) Here, Alliance
filed a unit modification petition, but after the Board agent dismissed that petition,
Alliance failed to appeal. Accordingly, Alliance has waived its right to pursue the
petition.
Alliance II was a rare exception in which we considered the merits of a
proposed unit modification that was not properly before us. In that case, respondents
argued in their briefing to the Board that we should consider its alleged changed
circumstances as part of resolving UTLA’s unfair practice charge in that matter, rather
than after the appropriate petition process, and threatened to refuse to bargain with
UTLA while it litigated such a petition. (Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809,
p. 24, fn. 24.) Even as the Board admonished Alliance for this “patent misuse of
16 While Alliance has also referred to “special circumstances,” it has not
provided any justification for considering its reorganization to constitute special
circumstances. Indeed, in support of this proposition Alliance cites to Brinks, Inc. of
Florida (1985) 276 NLRB 1, where the NLRB found special circumstances existed
because the unit contained security guards with other positions, in direct violation of
the clear statutory mandate of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 151 et
seq.). (Id. at p. 2.) The units here do not violate the clear mandates of EERA, and
therefore the facts of this case are distinguishable.

22
PERB’s processes which we do not condone” (ibid.), it exercised its discretion to
consider the merits of Alliance’s unit modification arguments based upon the
voluminous stipulated record before it (id. at p. 23.). The Board explained that it took
this unusual step in the interest of judicial and administrative economy, and to obviate
delay and the additional litigation costs both parties would incur if Alliance were to file
a subsequent unit modification petition. (Ibid.) After addressing each of Alliance’s
alleged changed circumstances and ultimately noting that there was “still only a weak
argument in support of requiring that a larger unit is the only appropriate unit” (id. at
p. 27), the Board concluded that Alliance had not established changed circumstances
warranting reconsideration of the bargaining units (ibid.). We reiterated that “UTLA
need only petition for an appropriate unit, not the most appropriate unit.” (Ibid., italics
in original.)
Unlike in Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809, here we will not excuse
Alliance’s further procedural misstep. This case, a technical refusal to bargain, is
simply not an appeal of Alliance’s unit modification petition, and we hold Alliance to its
indisputable waiver in ceasing to pursue that petition when it failed to appeal the
Board agent’s dismissal.
However, we also note in the alternative that even if Alliance were permitted to
raise its unit modification arguments here after failing to preserve its petition, the
substantive reasons Alliance cannot prevail are as strong here as they were in
Alliance II. To begin, a petition for unit modification is precluded “if, within the previous
12 months, the employer has lawfully recognized, or the Board has certified, the
exclusive representative in the described unit or a subdivision thereof.” (PERB

23
Reg. 32786, subd. (b)(4).) PERB considers this certification bar period to begin from
the date the employer begins good faith negotiations with the union. (Redondo Beach
City School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 140, adopting proposed decision at
p. 4 (Redondo Beach).) In this respect, PERB Regulations do not condone an
employer using a unit modification petition to decertify a union with which it has never
agreed to bargain. Rather, if an employer claims that new, changed circumstances
warrant a modification, it must continue to bargain in good faith even while it pursues
its unit modification petition. (See Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809, p. 19
[“particularly given the history in which Alliance led employees to believe that each
school was autonomous, and then steadfastly refused to abide by majority wishes in
the individual units, it would frustrate EERA’s purposes to extinguish bargaining rights
based on a January 1, 2020 reorganization that Alliance chose not to raise until after
we issued Alliance I”].)
Furthermore, the petition raised arguments that we already rejected. (Alliance
III, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-491, pp. 14-15.) For instance, as explained above and
in Alliance II and Alliance III, the reorganization constitutes neither newly discovered
nor previously unavailable evidence, given that it predated the relevant events.
(Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809, p. 24.) Moreover, individual school units
remained appropriate because UTLA relied on the schools’ initial representations that
they were separate employers (ibid.), and for multiple other substantive reasons we
have previously explained.

24
III. 	Per Alliance III’s De Novo Review, Single School Bargaining Units are
Appropriate
As noted above, in Alliance III, we rejected the Charter Schools’ arguments that
collateral estoppel could not apply to the unit determinations in Alliance I and Alliance
II “given that the same parties already litigated the precise issue at stake, and there
are no material factual differences.” (Alliance III, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-491,
p. 15.) Here, Alliance again argues that the unit determinations must be decided on
their merits via a hearing. We still disagree.
As we exhaustively explained in Alliance III, a hearing is not required to
determine whether the petitioned-for units are appropriate. PERB Regulation 33237,
subdivision (a) governs the investigation of representation petitions and provides:
“Whenever a petition regarding a representation matter is
filed with the Board, the Board shall investigate and, where
appropriate, conduct a hearing and/or a representation
election or take such other action as deemed necessary to
decide the questions raised by the petition.”
Thus, there is “no guarantee or entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.” (Children of
Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 16 (Children of
Promise); see PERB Reg. 33237, subd. (a).) Rather, after completing an investigation,
the Board agent may either “determine that sufficient evidence has been submitted to
raise a material issue that necessitates an evidentiary hearing,” or “that no material
issue of fact exists and thus that a hearing is unnecessary.” (Children of Promise,
supra, PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 17.) “In reviewing whether a Board agent has
conducted a proper investigation, the Board generally has looked at whether or not the
Board agent abused his or her discretion.” (Id. at p. 13.)

25
In the current representation matters, the Board agent determined that UTLA
had provided sufficient proof of support and informed the Charter Schools that they
needed to either recognize UTLA as the exclusive representative of certificated
employees at the Charter Schools, or dispute the appropriateness of the bargaining
units. Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine argued that the entire Alliance Network
of charter schools constituted a single employer, and that the only appropriate
bargaining unit consists of certificated employees at all Alliance Network schools, an
argument we already considered and rejected in Alliance I and Alliance II. The Charter
Schools raised no other issues challenging the appropriateness of the petitioned-for
units. We therefore found that the Board agent had not abused her discretion by
deciding the relevant issues without an evidentiary hearing. (Alliance III, supra, PERB
Order No. Ad-491, p. 14.)
Notwithstanding Alliance III’s rejection of respondents’ arguments against the
application of collateral estoppel to representation proceedings, we exercised our
discretion to review the parties’ submissions de novo. We found on the merits that the
single school units are appropriate pursuant to section 3545’s “statutory presumption
that all certificated employees of a ‘public school employer’ should normally be
included in a single bargaining unit—the ‘Peralta presumption,’ bearing the
designation of our landmark decision in Peralta Community College District (1978)
PERB Decision No. 77.” (Alliance III, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-491, p. 16; id. at
pp. 15-21 [analyzing the community of interest, established practices, and employer
efficiency factors to determine the appropriateness of the petitioned-for units].) Thus,
we deemed each respondent school a public school employer and “‘to the extent it

26
applies, the Peralta presumption largely favors school-by-school units.’” (Id. at p. 17,
quoting Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 25.) Because the parties
stipulated that there were no material changes in the facts with respect to Alliance’s
operations or Alliance’s relationship with Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine from
July 14, 2021, the date the parties filed stipulations in the Alliance II case, to the date
the stipulations were filed in the instant case, there is no cause to revisit our de novo
analysis of the appropriateness of the single school units from Alliance III.17
For the foregoing reasons, we find that Alliance has failed to establish that
changed or special circumstances warrant reconsideration of the petitioned-for units at
Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine. Consequently, Alliance has failed to
demonstrate that its refusal to recognize and bargain with UTLA was warranted. This
conduct violates EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (c).
IV. 	Remedy
The Legislature has delegated to PERB broad powers to remedy EERA
violations and to take any action the Board deems necessary to effectuate the Act’s
purposes. (Sacramento City Unified School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 2749,
p. 10, citing EERA, § 3541.5, subd. (c); City of San Diego (2015) PERB Decision
No. 2464-M, p. 42; Mt. San Antonio Community College Dist. v. Public Employment
Relations Bd. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 178, 189-190.) In addition to serving restorative
17 Although Alliance contends there is a “disputed issue of material fact” that
requires an evidentiary hearing, the only fact that it offers in support is its January 1,
2020 reorganization. We have repeatedly dismissed the propriety of introducing this
fact as “new” evidence, and in any event, we fully considered the reorganization in
Alliance II.

27
and compensatory purposes, the ordered remedy should also deter future misconduct,
so long as the order is not a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which
can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the Act. (Sacramento City Unified School
District, supra, PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 11; City of San Diego, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2464-M, pp. 40-42.)
In Redondo Beach, supra, PERB Decision No. 140, the Board considered the
appropriate remedial order in light of the employer’s technical refusal to bargain. In
addition to ordering the employer to meet and confer with the exclusive representative
upon request, the Board further directed:
“in order that the employees in the appropriate unit will be
accorded the services of their selected representative for
the period provided by law, the initial period of certification
shall be construed as beginning on the date the District
commences to negotiate in good faith with the Federation
as the recognized exclusive representative in the
appropriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Co., Inc. (1962) 136
NLRB 785; Commerce Co. d/b/a Lamar Hotel (1962) 140
NLRB 226, 229, enfd. (5th Cir. 1964) 328 F.2d 600 . . .”
(Redondo Beach, supra, adopting proposed decision at p. 4; see also Van Dorn
Plastic Machinery Co. (1990) 300 NLRB 278, 280-281; Richardson Engineering Co.
(1980) 248 NLRB 702, 704; Burnett Construction Co. (1964) 149 NLRB 1419, 1421.)
In Alliance II, supra, PERB Decision No. 2809, we found the circumstances
warranted extending the certification bar to at least 12 months from the
commencement of good faith bargaining, subject to extension if Alliance is found to
have engaged in additional unfair labor practices. (Id. at p. 30.) Likewise, we find the
circumstances here warrant extending the certification bar to at least 12 months from

28
commencement of good faith bargaining, subject to extension if Alliance is found to
have engaged in additional unfair labor practices.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the entire record in
the case, and the record of Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High
School et al. (2020) PERB Decision No. 2719, and Alliance Judy Ivie Burton
Technology Academy High School et al. (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809, the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB) finds that Alliance-College Ready Public
Schools (Alliance) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA),
Government Code section 3543.5, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), by failing to recognize
and bargain with United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA).
Pursuant to section 3541.3 of the Government Code, it hereby is ORDERED
that Alliance and its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Refusing to recognize or negotiate in good faith with UTLA as the
exclusive representative of all classifications and positions in the certificated
bargaining units;
2. 	By the same conduct, interfering with the rights of employees to
be represented by their exclusive representative; and
3. 	Denying UTLA the right to represent its members.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF EERA:

29
1. 	Recognize and upon request, bargain in good faith with UTLA as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the certificated units and if an
understanding is reached, reduce it to writing and sign it. On commencement of good
faith bargaining, UTLA’s status as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of
the certificated units shall be extended for a minimum of 12 months thereafter, as if
the initial year of the certification has not expired.
2. 	Within 10 workdays following the date this decision is no longer
subject to appeal, post at all work locations where notices to employees are posted,
copies of the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. An authorized agent of Alliance
must sign the Notice. Once posted, the Notice shall remain in place for a period of 30
consecutive workdays. Alliance shall take reasonable steps to prevent alteration or
defacement, as well as to prevent other materials from covering it. In addition to
physically posting this Notice, Alliance shall post it by electronic message, intranet,
internet site, and other electronic means Alliance uses to communicate with
employees.18
3. 	Notify OGC of all actions taken to follow this Order by providing
written reports as directed by OGC and concurrently serving such reports on UTLA.
Members Krantz and Paulson joined in this Decision.
18 Any party may ask PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to alter or
extend the posting period, require further notice methods, or otherwise supplement or
adjust this Order to ensure adequate notice. Upon receipt of such a request, OGC
shall solicit input from all parties and, if warranted, provide amended instructions to
ensure adequate notice.

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. LA-CE-6728-E, United Teachers
Los Angeles v. Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools, in which all parties
had the right to participate, the Public Employment Relations Board found that the
Alliance College-Ready Public Schools (Alliance) violated the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code section 3540 et seq.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we
will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Refusing to recognize or negotiate in good faith with United
Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) as the exclusive representative of all classifications and
positions in the certificated bargaining units;
2. 	By the same conduct, interfering with the rights of employees to
be represented by their exclusive representative; and
3. 	Denying UTLA the right to represent its members.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF EERA:
1. 	Recognize and upon request, bargain in good faith with UTLA as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the certificated units and if an
understanding is reached, reduce it to writing and sign it. On commencement of good
faith bargaining, UTLA’s status as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of
the certificated units shall be extended for a minimum of 12 months thereafter, as if
the initial year of the certification has not expired.
Dated: _____________________ 	ALLIANCE COLLEGE-READY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS
By: _________________________________
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST 30
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.