Victor Valley Community College District (PERB A388E)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

VICTOR VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,

Employer, Case No. LA-SV-164-E

and Administrative Appeal

POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, VICTOR PERB Order No. Ad-388
VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT —
POLICE DEPARTMENT, November 18, 2010

Petitioner,

and

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND ITS CHAPTER 584,

Exclusive Representative.

Appearances: Craig Baumbusch, President, for Police Officers Association, Victor Valley
Community College District — Police Department; California School Employees Association
by Maureen C. Whelan, Staff Attorney, for California School Employees Association and its
Chapter 584.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; McKeag and Wesley, Members.
DECISION

WESLEY, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(Board) on appeal by the Police Officers Association, Victor Valley Community College
District — Police Department (Association) of a Board agent’s dismissal (attached) of its
severance petition. The Association filed the severance petition pursuant to the Educational

Employment Relations Act (EERA)' seeking to create a bargaining unit comprised of most, but

not all, of the Campus Police Officers and Campus Reserve Police Officers included in the

‘ EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

bargaining unit represented by the California School Employees Association and its
Chapter 584 (CSEA). The Board agent dismissed the petition finding that the proposed
bargaining unit was not an appropriate unit. The Board agent determined that the employees
proposed to be included in the new unit had a community of interest with employees in the
existing unit, and that the proposed unit would adversely affect the efficiency of operations of
the employer, the Victor Valley Community College District (District).
The Board has reviewed the Board agent's dismissal and the record in light of the
Association's appeal,2 CSEA's response to the appeal and the relevant law. Based on this
review, the Board finds the Board agent's dismissal to be well-reasoned, adequately supported
by the record and in accordance with applicable law. The Board therefore adopts the Board
agent's dismissal of the severance petition as the decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
The severance petition in Case No. LA-SV-164-E is hereby DISMISSED.
Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.
The Association's request to stay the appeal in this case pending resolution of its
lawsuit against the District is denied.
2

STATE OF CAUFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMEI\i- .i RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (8 l 8) 551-2804
Fax: (818) 551-2820
September 1, 2010
Craig Baumbusch, President
Poiice Officers Assn., VVCCD-PD
P.O. Box 2403
Wrightwood, CA 92397
Andy Evano, Labor Relations Representative
California School Employees Association
10211 Trademark Street, Unit A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Fusako Yokotobi, VP for Human Resources
Victor Valley Community College District
18422 Bear Valley Rd.
Victorville, CA 92395-5850
Re: 	Victor Valley Community College District
Case No. LA-SV-164-E
DISMISSAL OF PETITION
Dear Interested Parties:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
The above-referenced severance petition was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on March 8, 2010. The Police Officers Association, Victor Valley
Community College District (Association) seeks to create a bargaining unit consisting of
"persons appointed as campus police officers or campus reserve police officers in compliance
with California state laws and district policies" in the Victor Valley Community College
District (District). The Association later clarified its position by explaining that it is
petitioning to include those Campus Police Officers and Campus Reserve Police Officers who
possess the certificates required to be considered a peace officer in California (collectively
"Included Officers"). The Association sought to exclude all Campus Police Officers and
Campus Reserve Police Officers that do not possess such certification (collectively "Excluded
Officers") as well as all other employees. All Campus Police Officers and Campus Reserve
Police Officers are currently in a wall-to-wall classified employees bargaining unit exclusively
represented by California School Employees Association, Chapter 584 (CSEA).
On August 4, 2010, PERB issued the Association an Order to Show Cause (OSC) as to why
petition should not be dismissed for seeking to create an inappropriate bargaining unit. 	A copy
of the OSC is included as an attachment to this letter. PERB afforded the Association until
August 18, 2010 to file a response to the OSC to provide additional facts demonstrating the
appropriateness of its petitioned-for unit. PERB explained to the Association that any factual
assertions must be supported by declarations under penalty of perjury by witnesses with

LA-SV-164-E
September 1, 2010
Page 2
personal knowledge and should indicate that the witnesses, if called to testify, would
competently testify about the facts asserted. 	On August 17, 2010, the Association filed its
response to the OSC. The Association raises several arguments supporting the appropriateness
of its proposed unit but provides few additional facts and did not challenge the majority of the
factual conclusions relied on in the OSC. Furthermore, the additional facts provided by the
Association are not supported by declarations as instructed in the OSC. 1
1. 	Unit Determinations Under the Educational Employment Relations Act
As explained in more detail in the OSC, in making unit determination under the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA),2 PERB considers factors such as: 	(1) the community of
interest among employees; (2) the effect on the efficient operations of the school district; and
(3) the representation and negotiation history for the employees involved. (Gov. Code, §
3545(a); Long Beach Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 765; Rio Hondo
Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 87.) PERB explained in the OSC that
there was substantial evidence in the undisputed record that the Included Officers share a
community of interest with the Excluded Officers and that separating Included Officers and
Excluded Officers into different bargaining units would adversely affect the District's
bargaining operations. For those reasons, PERB found that the unit proposed by the
Association was not an appropriate bargaining unit in accordance with EERA section 3545(a).3
The Association argues that PERB should not separate Campus Police Officers into a different
bargaining unit from Campus Reserve Police Officers and contends that Sweetwater Union
High School District (1976) EERB Decision No. 4 (Sweetwater)4 and Long Beach Community
The Association does include as an attachment a document entitled "Memorandum of
Points and Authorities [in support of] Petition for \Vrit of Mandamus," which includes some
factual assertions followed by the statement that "I Craig Baumbusch, declare: I composed the
forgoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus and know the contents thereof in the above entitled
action. I am informed, believe and allege based on information and belief that the contents are
true. I declare under penalty of pe1jury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct." In Santa Ana Unified School District (2010) PERB Decision
No. Ad-383, the Board found a similar statement was not sufficient to constitute a "declaration
by a witness with personal knowledge signed under penalty of perjury." Thus the facts alleged
in the Association's attachment to not satisfy the requirements set forth in the OSC.
2 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at wvrw.perb.ca.gov.
3 PERB also found that the history of representation of the classifications at issue
neither favored nor disfavored the Association's proposed unit.
4 Prior to January 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations
Board or EERB. 	(See Gov. Code, § 3540; Madera Unified School District (2007) PERB
Decision No.1907, fn. 3, other citations omitted.)

LA-SV-164-E
September
1,
2010
Page 3
College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315 (Long Beach CCD), stand for the proposition
that a unit
of
police officers should be considered presumptively appropriate. 	The Association
contends that CSEA has the burden
of
demonstrating such a unit is inappropriate. However,
the appropriateness
of
a police officer unit in a community college district is not in dispute in
this case because the Association has not petitioned for all
of
the District's Campus Police
Officers and Campus Reserve Police Officers.5 The Association has petitioned to create a unit
of
only Included Officers. The central issue
of
this petition
is
whether that proposed unit is
appropriate. PERB considered this issue in the OSC according to the factors outlined above
and concluded that, under any burden
of
proof, the Association's proposed unit is not
appropriate.
A. 	Community
of
Interest
PERB found in the OSC that, based on the undisputed facts, the Included Officers share a
significant community
of
interest with the Excluded Officers. For example, both Included
Officers and Excluded Officers have similar job titles, salaries, benefits, supervision, uniforms,
and job duties. PERB noted that some
of
the Excluded Officers lack the ability to make arrests
and to issue citations for moving violations, but noted that those duties were relatively minor
compared to the several other job duties that Included Officers and Excluded Officers shared.
PERB also noted that, according to the Association, Excluded Officers do not possess the same
training as Included Officers, but found that such differences were not significant enough to
negate a finding that Included Officers and Excluded Officers share a community
of
interest.
Because
of
the similarity in working conditions between Included Officers and Excluded
Officers, PERB found in the OSC that separating these classifications into separate bargaining
units was not appropriate. After review
of
the response filed by the Association, PERB finds
no cause to depart from the conclusions reached in the OSC.
The Association states that PERB should not have relied on the District's statement that its
Police Department, as a whole, makes fewer than
10
arrests per year and contends that the
5 Moreover, the Association's interpretation
of
Sweetwater, supra, EERB Decision
No. 4 and Long Beach CCD, supra, PERB Decision No. 1315 is incorrect. In Sweetwater,
supra, EERB Decision No. 4, the Board found that three types
of
classified employee
bargaining units commonly share a community
of
interest with one another and are therefore
considered to be presumptively appropriate bargaining units. Those three units are: ( 1)
Instructional Aides; (2) Office-Technical and Business Services; and (3) Operations-Support.
If
an employee organization proposes to create one of these three units through a severance
petition, then the burden is on the party opposing severance to demonstrate that the established
unit is more appropriate than the "Sweetwater" unit. 	(San Juan Un(fied School District (1995)
PERB Decision No. 1082.) If, however, neither the existing bargaining unit nor the petitioned-
for unit are one of the three "Sweetwater" units, then the issue is whether the petitioned-for
unit is an appropriate unit. (Long Beach CCD, supra, PERB Decision No. 1315). In Long
Beach CCD, supra, PERB Decision No. 1315, the Board found that, under a specific set of
facts, a unit consisting of campus safety officers was appropriate.

LA-SV-164-E
September 1, 2010
Page 4
District's Police Department makes between 11 and 12 arrests per year. As explained above,
the Association's factual assertions are not supported by declarations made under penalty of
perjury. Therefore the Association has not provided PERB with an adequate basis for relying
on this assertion. However, even assuming the Association's assertions about the number of
arrests is true, it would not change the conclusion that both the Included Officers and the
Excluded Officers perform substantially similar job duties and that the Included Officers make
a relatively small number of arrests per year. Because it is undisputed that both Included
Officers and Excluded Officers share similar working conditions, it cannot be concluded that
the Included Officers and Excluded Officers lack a community of interest.
In the OSC, PERB noted that there was a dispute between the parties over which employees
possess the certificates described by the Association, but PERB found it unnecessary to resolve
this dispute. The Association contends that resolution of this dispute is necessary to address
the unit issue because it claims that two of the Excluded Officers are performing the duties of a
peace officer in violation of the Penal Code. According to the Association, the failure to
resolve the dispute involving the certification of these two employees allows for "the
misperception that specific positions identified in the Association's petition do not have a
community of interest separate and distinct from other positions in CSEA' s bargaining unit."
This argument is unpersuasive for at least two reasons. First, as explained above, PERB' s
evaluation of the community of interest between the positions in the Association's proposed
unit and the existing classified unit considered the totality of the positions' working conditions
and not just minor differences in certain job duties. 	Second, even if PERB were to assume that
that Excluded Officers are performing the duties in question unlawfully, it would provide
further support for the conclusions reached in the OSC. PERB found that Included Officers
and Excluded Officers share a community of interest based, in part, on similarities in job
duties. According to the Association, Excluded Officers share even more job duties with
Included Officers than what was found in the OSC.
The Association argues that the two Excluded Officers that are performing these duties are
doing so illegally. Assuming for the purposes of discussion that the Association's
;,,.,+,,	.i.i.1\..V.i._,P.iVL	...,,,. .. a+a+;on	l.1 	.l o++1-..a	.i UlV Panal	.1.. V l,..1. Code l0
S true the Asnoc1' 0 t;~,,., Aoan -~+ a~r,Jc,;,-, hrHH th	, 	.::, 	llVl t...,A}'lct.LH 	"'	a 1V11 U :..,.::, 	1-lVYV U.l'v 1....,.fS	lan-al;+u	J.l.\..J A+	V.l..
the duties performed by these employees has any effect on PERB' s unit determination. 	To the
extent that the Association is seeking to have PERB require the District to comply with the
Association's interpretation of the Penal Code, PERB lacks the jurisdiction to do so. (State of
California (Department of Corrections) (2004) PERB Decision No. l 559a-S.)
B. 	Efficiency of Operations
PERB also found that creating a unit of Included Officers while leaving the Excluded Officers
in the classified bargaining unit would adversely affect the District's operations because it
would cause the District to negotiate the working conditions of the same job classifications,
i.e., Campus Police Officers and Campus Reserve Police Officers, with both the Association
and with CSEA. After review of the response filed by the Association, PERB finds no cause to
depart from the conclusions reached in the OSC.

LA-SV-164-E
September 1, 2010
Page 5
The Association argues that PERB has given too much weight to the proposed unit's effect on
the efficiency of the District's operations. Quoting Santa Ana Unified School District, supra,
PERB Decision No. Ad-383, the Association notes that "the Board has never found the
efficiency factor to outweigh representation rights." (Citations omitted.) Unlike the present
case, that case concerned a petition to represent previously unrepresented substitute teachers.
The portion of that Board's decision quoted by the Association refers to the Board's finding in
that case that denying the union's petition would result in substitute teachers having "no
representation whatsoever." In the present case, all the positions at issue in the Association's
petition are currently represented by CSEA. Accordingly, PERB' s finding that the
Association's petition is not appropriate does not result in Campus Police Officers or Campus
Reserve Police Officers having no representation. Moreover, BERA and PERB case law are
clear that the efficiency of the employer's operations is one factor to be considered when
making unit determinations. (Long Beach Community College District, supra, PERB Decision
No. 765; Rio Hondo Community College District, supra, PERB Decision No. 87.) PERB's
decision to do so in this case was not in error.
The Association also argues that it will adversely affect the District's operations if the
community at large discovers that the District is allowing Campus Police Officers who do not
possess the proper certification to issue citations for moving violations. This position is
unpersuasive for several reasons. First, the Association has not presented any facts, supported
by declaration, demonstrating that any of the Excluded Officers that lack certification are in
fact issuing citations for moving violations.6 Second, it is speculative, at best, to predict the
reaction of the community to the information at issue. Third, the Association has not
established that PERB 's unit determination would alter the District's assignment of duties or
its efforts to comply with the Association's interpretation of the Penal Code. Thus, any
community effects would be present regardless of PERB' s unit determination.
For these reasons and based on the substantial and undisputed evidence, the positions in the
proposed unit share a community of interest with positions in the existing classified unit and a
severance of the proposed unit would adversely affect the District's operations. Therefore, the
Association's proposed unit is not a appropriate unit and the petition is dismissed.
Right of Appeal
An appeal of this decision to the Board itself may be made within ten ( 10) calendar days
following the date of service of this decision. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32360.) To be timely
filed, the original and five (5) copies of any appeal must be filed with the Board itself at the
following address:
The Association does make reference to these allegations in its attachment entitled
"Memorandum of Points and Authorities [in support of] Petition for Writ of Mandamus."
However, for the reasons already specified above, this does not qualify as a declaration by a
witness with personal knowledge signed under penalty of perjury. 	,

LA-SV-164-E
September
1,
2010
Page 6
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031
18th Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
§§
32135, subd. (a) and 32130; 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
PERB Regulation 32135(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) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8, §§
32090 and 32130.)
The appeal must state the specific issues
of
procedure, fact, law or rationale that are appealed
and must state the grounds for the appeal (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
§ 32360, subd. (c)).
	An
appeal will not automatically prevent the Board from proceeding in this case. A party seeking
a stay
of
any activity may file such a request with its administrative appeal, and must include
all pertinent facts and justifications for the request (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
§ 32370).
If
a timely appeal is filed, any other party may file with the Board an original and five (5)
copies
of
a response to the appeal within ten (10) calendar days following the date
of
service
ofthe appeal (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
§ 32375).
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding
a.nd
on the regional office. A "proof
of
service" must accompany each copy
of
a
. document served upon a party or filed with the Board itself (see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
§ 32140 for the required contents). The document will be considered properly "served" when
personally delivered or deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly
addressed. A document may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all
parties to the proceeding. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
§ 32135, subd. (c).)

LA-SV-164-E
September 1,2010
Page 7
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time in which to file an appeal or opposition to an appeal with the
Board itself must be in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A
request for an extension must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration of
the time required for filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and, if
known, the position of each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by
proof of service ofthe request upon each party (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32132).
Since¢10
'-EtjpJ.Cu
Regional Attorney
EC
Enclosure

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700
N.
Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2804
Fax: (818) 551-2820
August 4, 2010
Craig Baumbusch, President
Police Officers Assn., VVCCD-PD
P.O. Box 2403
Wrightwood, CA 92397
Andy Evano, Labor Relations Representative
California School Employees Association
10211 Trademark Street, Unit A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Fusako Yokotobi, VP for Human Resources
Victor Valley Community College District
18422 Bear Valley Rd.
Victorville, CA 92395-5850
Re: 	Case No. LA-SV-164-E
Victor Valley Community College District
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Dear Interested Parties:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
The above-referenced severance petition was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on March
8,
2010. The Police Officers Association, Victor Valley
Community College District (Association) seeks to create a bargaining unit consisting
of
"persons appointed as campus police officers or campus reserve police officers in compliance
with California state laws and district policies" in the Victor Valley Community College
District (District). 	On April 20, 2010, the Association clarified its position by explaining that
certain individuals employed by the District as either campus police officers or campus reserve
police officers are employed as peace officers, but do not possess the required certifications to
actually be a peace officer in California. The Association seeks to create a unit
of
campus
police officers and campus reserve police officers, but seeks to exclude all persons in those
positions who do not possess what the Association asserts is the proper peace officer
certifications.
Campus police officers and campus reserve police officers are currently in a wall-to-wall
classified bargaining unit that is exclusively represented by California School Employees
Association, Chapter 584 (CSEA). PERB's records show that CSEA has represented this unit
since May 11, 1976. On March 24, 2010, CSEA filed a statement in opposition to the
Association's severance petition. CSEA questioned whether the Association had the suppo1i
of a majority of the employees in the proposed unit. 	CSEA also questioned the appropriateness
of the bargaining unit described by the Association.

LA-SV-164-E
August 4, 2010
Page 2
On April 23, 2010, PERB made the administrative determination that the
proof
of
support
submitted with the Association's severance petition was sufficient to meet the requirements
of
PERB Regulation 32050(b). 1
On May 10, 2010, the District declined to recognize the
Association as the excusive representative
of
the proposed unit due to the outstanding
issues
raised by CSEA.
	On
May 19, 2010, CSEA reiterated its position challenging the
appropriateness
of
the proposed unit.
On July 7, 2010, PERB conducted an informal conference to explore settlement and
clarify
the
issues raised by the parties. The matter was not resolved during this conference.
Facts:
PERB
's
investigation into the issues raised by the parties uncovered the following facts.
According to the Association, to be considered a "peace officer" under the California
Penal
Code, the officer must possess a certificate demonstrating completion
of
a recognized
peace
officers' training course, as well as a certificate demonstrating successful completion
of
a
psychological evaluation. Again, according to the Association, four
of
the twelve individuals
currently employed by the District as either a campus police officer or a campus reserve police
officer do not possess at least one
of
these two required certificates. According to the
Association, those employees who do not qualify to be considered a peace officer under the
California Penal Code are not authorized to perform the duties
of
a peace officer which
primarily include carrying a firearm, making arrests and writing citations for traffic violations
other than parking violations (moving violations).
The
job
description for the campus police officer position describes the position's job duties as
follows:
Under the direction
of
an area administrator, patrol and guard
campus property, buildings and equipment to protect against
theft, vandalism and fire; maintain order, security and prevent
illegal acts; enforce campus parking and traffic regulations, state
and local laws; perform investigative duties relating to campus
incidents; issue citations and make arrests as necessary; act as a
branch
of
the criminal justice system.
It is undisputed that this is an accurate description
of
campus police officers' duties. It is
further undisputed that these are also the duties
of
the campus reserve police officer position.
According to the District, the main duties
of
both
of
these positions are to patrol the District's
property, assist students and staff as escorts or by opening locked vehicles, and drafting reports
PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
3 1001 et seq.

LA-SV-164-E
August 4, 2010
Page 3
on various incidents observed while on duty. The District maintains that its police department
makes fewer than
10
arrests and issues fewer than
10
moving violation citations per year.
All campus police officers and campus reserve police officers are supervised by the District's
Chief
of
Police. Both positions are paid at range
13
on the District's salary scale. All
employees in these two positions wear a uniform consisting
of
either a blue dress shirt and
slacks or a white dress shirt and slacks. Campus police officers are classified as such because
they are given a regular work shift by the District. Campus reserve police officers
do
not work
a regular shift but are called to fill-in when a campus police officer is absent or when the
District hosts an event that requires additional security personnel. Four campus reserve police
officers have not been given a work assignment from the District for more than one year. 	This
includes individuals who, according to the Association, possess all the required certifications
to be classified
as
a peace officer as well as individuals who do not possess such certifications.
Discussion:
The Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) section 3545(a)2 states:
In each case where the appropriateness
of
the unit is an issue, the
board shall decide the question on the basis
of
the community
of
interest between and among the employees and their established
practices including, among other things, the extent to which such
employees belong to the same employee organization, and the
effect
of
the size
of
the unit on the efficient operation
of
the
school district.
In making unit determinations under EERA section 3545(a), the Board considers factors such
as: (
1)
the community
of
interest among employees; (2) the effect on the efficient operations of
the school district; and (3) the representation and negotiations history for the employees
involved. 	(Long Beach Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 765; Rio
Hondo Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 87.)
In Long Beach Community College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315, the Board found
that a unit
of
police officers at a community college district was appropriate where the above-
described factors supported that conclusion. That case concerned the appropriateness
of
a
bargaining unit consisting of all the employer's police officers. In the present case, the
Association seeks to create a bargaining unit consisting of all campus police officers and
campus reserve police officers who have completed both levels of certification that the
Association contends are necessary to be considered a peace officer under the Penal Code.
Thus, the issue currently before PERB is whether such a unit is appropriate.
2 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of EERA and
PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

LA-SV-164-E
August 4, 2010
Page 4
1.
	Community
of
Interest
To determine whether a community
of
interest exists among employees, the Board considers a
variety
of
factors such as duties, wages, hours, benefits, supervision, qualifications, and
interchange among employees. 	(San Diego Community College District (2001) PERB
Decision No. 1445, citing Office
of
the Santa Clara County Superintendent
of
Schools (1978)
PERB Decision No. 59.) Such determinations are made after considering the totality
of
the
circumstances. (Ibid.) In severance cases, the petitioner must show that the proposed unit has
a "separate and distinct community
of
interest" from the existing bargaining unit. (Lodi
Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1429.)
Applying these factors to the present petition, it
is
undisputed that all campus police officers
and campus reserve police officers are paid at the same range
of
the salary scale and receive
the same benefits. All employees in both positions are supervised by the District's Chief
of
Police.
	In
addition, all employees in both positions wear similar uniforms. 	Such similarities
are evidence that all campus police officers and campus reserve police officers, regardless
of
the certificates possessed, share a community
of
interest with one another.
In addition, it is undisputed that all campus police officers and campus reserve police officers
have the same job duties including patrolling the District's property, providing security,
conducting investigations, and enforcing traffic and other local laws. The Association asserts
that the four individuals employed as campus police officers or campus reserve police officers
do not possess the required certifications and therefore cannot perform arrests or issue citations
for moving violations. This assertion is disputed by both the District and CSEA. However,
these two job duties account for a relatively small proportion
of
campus police officer and
campus reserve police officer duties.3 Thus, irrespective
of
this dispute, all campus police
officers and campus reserve police officers appear to have substantially similar job duties.
It is also undisputed in this case that all campus police officers and campus reserve police
officers are required to possess the same qualifications. As mentioned above, there is a dispute
over whether all of the employees in these classifications possess such certifications, but given
the similarities amongst all campus police officers and campus reserve police officers, it is not
necessary to resolve this dispute. Based on these similarities, it appears that all campus police
officers and campus reserve police officers share a community
of
interest. Accordingly, the
specific positions identified in the Association's petition do not have a community of interest
separate and distinct from other positions in CSEA' s bargaining unit. (See Lodi Unified
School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 1429.) This disfavors finding that the petitioned-
for unit is appropriate.
According to the District, the entire District police department makes fewer than 10
arrests and issues fewer than 10 citations for moving violations per year.

LA-SV-164-E
August 4, 2010
Page 5
2.
	Efficiency
of
the District's Operations
The efficiency
of
operations factor addresses what effect,
if
any, the proposed unit
configuration has on the employer's operations. (San Francisco Community College District
(1994) PERB Decision No. 1068.) For example, the Board has recognized that a unit
configuration that results in a "proliferation
of
small units" can adversely affect an employer's
operations. (Ibid.) The Board has also found that the additional obligations an employer
incurs from administering
a.nd
negotiating with another bargaining unit, under certain
circumstances, may adversely affect the employer's operations. (State
of
California
(Department
of
Personnel Administration) (1993) PERB Decision No. 988-S.)
In the present case, the Association proposes dividing campus police officers and campus
reserve police officers into two different units depending solely on whether the employees in
those positions possess certain certifications. The Association's proposal would require the
District to negotiate the terms and conditions
of
employment for campus police officers and
campus reserve police officers with both the Association and with CSEA, even though the
positions share many
of
the same working conditions. Such a proposal would likely result in
duplication
of
the District's negotiation efforts. In addition, the Association's proposal allows
for the situation where two employees in the same job classification and with similar
job
responsibilities could be subject
to
different working conditions depending on which
organization the employee is represented by. This could result in the undesirable possibility
that employees in the positions at issue will decide whether to obtain the proper training and
certification based on which employee organization, CSEA or the Association, provides them
with more favorable working conditions. 	Such a possibility adversely affects the District's
ability to manage its employees as well
as
operate its police department. For all
of
these
reasons, the unit proposed by the Association appears to negatively affect the efficiency
of
the
District's operations.
3. 	History
of
Representation
11i~nother
factor considered in unit determinations is the extent to which the representative
organization for the positions at issue have been capable of effectively representing those
positions in subjects that are within the scope
of
representation. (Los Angeles Unified School
District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1267.)
In the present case, CSEA has represented the District's classified employees' unit, including
campus police officers and campus reserve police officers, since approximately May 11, 1976.
There was no indication from the parties that CSEA's representation of campus police officers
and campus reserve police officers changes depending on whether employees in those
positions possess the required certifications. In addition, no party has presented information at
this point regarding the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of CSEA's representation of campus
police officers or campus reserve police officers. Based on the information provided by the
parties, this factor does not weigh heavily in favor of or against the Association's proposed
unit.

LA-SV-164-E
August 4, 2010
Page 6
However, given the lack
of
a separate and distinct community
of
interest among the positions
included in the proposed unit, as well
as
the potentially adverse consequences the proposed
unit may have on the District's operations, the bargaining unit described in the Association's
petition does not appear to be an appropriate unit.
In light
of
the above, the Association is afforded this opportunity to SHO\V Ci\USE as to
vvhy
its severance petitions should not be dismissed for seeking to create an inappropriate
bargaining unit. Factual assertions must be supported by declarations under penalty
of
perjury
by witnesses with personal knowledge and should indicate that the witness,
if
called, could
competently testify about the facts asserted. If the facts asserted are reliant on a writing, the
writing must be attached to the declaration and authenticated therein. Legal argument and
supporting materials must be filed with the undersigned no later than August 18, 2010. 	Service
and proof
of
service pursuant to PERB Regulation 32140 are required.
Upon receipt
of
the Association's argument and factual assertions, or the expiration
of
the time
allowed for same, the undersigned shall contact each
of
the parties regarding further case
processing steps, including a deadline for responses to the Association's submittal,
if
requested.
Sincereiv
✓
'EricV. cu
Regional Attorney
EC