Dailey Elementary Charter School (PERB A514E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DAILEY ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL,
Employer,
and
FRESNO TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA,
Petitioner.
Case No. SA-RR-1211-E
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. Ad-514
April 18, 2024
Appearances: Darcey Severns, on her own behalf; California Teachers Association by
Theresa C. Witherspoon, Staff Attorney, for Fresno Teachers Association, CTA/NEA.
Before Krantz, Paulson, and Nazarian, Members.
DECISION
PAULSON, Member: This representation case is before the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB or Board) on a purported appeal by non-party Darcey Severns
from the attached administrative determination (AD) by PERB’s Office of the General
Counsel (OGC) certifying Fresno Teachers Association (FTA) as the exclusive
representative of all certificated teachers and other certificated classroom support
professionals at Dailey Elementary Charter School (Dailey).
In the AD, OGC concluded that: (1) FTA submitted sufficient proof of support
from a majority of employees in the proposed bargaining unit; (2) no other employee
organization properly intervened to seek to represent any of the employees in the
petitioned-for unit; (3) Dailey did not dispute that the proposed unit was appropriate;
and (4) Dailey had not granted recognition to FTA. Thus, OGC certified FTA as the

2
proposed unit’s exclusive representative pursuant to section 3544.1 of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA) and PERB Regulation 33485.1
Within a week after OGC issued the AD, Severns, a teacher at Dailey,
submitted a letter purporting to appeal the AD. Severns argues that there is no longer
majority support for FTA. She also asserts that she properly filed a petition for
intervention (Intervention). Severns urges us to overturn the decision to certify FTA as
the exclusive representative of teachers at Dailey because “staying unrepresented is
the best and most fair decision.” FTA opposes the appeal and requests that we affirm
the AD.
We have reviewed the record in this case and considered Severns’ arguments
and FTA’s opposition. We affirm the AD and adopt it as the decision of the Board
itself, as supplemented by the discussion below.
BACKGROUND
Dailey is a public school employer within the meaning of section 3540.1,
subdivision (k). FTA is an employee organization within the meaning of section
3540.1, subdivision (d). On May 24, 2023, FTA filed a petition for recognition (Petition)
with Dailey seeking recognition as the exclusive representative of a proposed unit of
all its certificated teachers and other certificated classroom support professionals.2
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. All subsequent
statutory references are to the Government Code. PERB Regulations are codified at
California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et seq.
2 All subsequent dates are in 2023.

3
Along with its Petition, FTA submitted proof of support to OGC in the form of original
signed authorization cards.
On May 25, OGC sent a notice to Dailey informing it that the Petition had been
filed with PERB and that no employee organization appeared to be recognized or
certified as the exclusive representative of any employees in the claimed unit. OGC
directed Dailey to post a copy of the Petition and the Notice of EERA Representation
Petition (Notice) at the school for 15 workdays. OGC also instructed Dailey to file a
written statement with certain responsive information as well as a list of names of all
individuals employed in the proposed bargaining unit.
On June 6, Dailey filed a written statement asserting, among other things, that it
had posted the Notice the day before and would keep it posted until June 23. On
June 20, Dailey filed an employee list based on payroll records from the month prior.
On June 22, Dailey filed an updated written statement notifying OGC that it would post
the Notice at Dailey from August 1 to August 21 to ensure that it did not include
non-workdays during the summer. In total, the Notice was posted from June 5 to
June 6 and August 1 to August 21.
On August 22, OGC notified the parties that FTA had demonstrated sufficient
proof of support as required by PERB Regulation 33050, subdivision (b). OGC stated
that, because FTA had evidenced majority support and no valid intervention had been
filed, Dailey was required to grant recognition to FTA unless it doubted the
appropriateness of the unit. OGC ordered Dailey to file a decision pursuant to PERB
Regulation 33190 within 15 calendar days.

4
On August 23, Severns attempted to file the Intervention with PERB, but she
did not include proof of service. On September 14, OGC issued Severns a deficiency
notice for failure to include a proof of service with her petition as mandated by PERB
Regulations 32140, 33050, subdivision (c), and 33070, subdivision (c). OGC
requested that Severns submit a proof of service by September 22 or it would return
the petition to her.
On September 20, FTA petitioned for a Board investigation pursuant to PERB
Regulation 33230, following Dailey’s failure to file its decision within 15 calendar days.
FTA noted that Dailey had not informed it of any concerns with the Petition and
requested that the Board determine whether the petitioned-for unit is appropriate and
order Dailey to recognize FTA. Later the same day, Severns served FTA with her
Intervention via e-mail.
On September 21, Severns filed the Intervention with a proof of service
reflecting that she had served the petition on FTA and Dailey on September 14 via
U.S. Mail and electronic service, despite FTA receiving Severns’ petition on
September 20. Severns’ signature on the proof of service is dated September 20.
On September 22, Dailey issued a decision denying recognition to FTA.
Although Dailey did not dispute the appropriateness of the proposed unit and
acknowledged that the Petition was timely and appropriately filed, Dailey stated a
reason for believing that an intervention had been filed.3 Dailey requested that the
Board resolve the unit dispute pursuant to section 3544.5, subdivision (a).
3 In response to the query, “Was the intervention timely and appropriately
filed?” Dailey stated, “Dailey Charter was informed by teachers that an intervention
petition was submitted to PERB, and a copy of the intervention petition was made

5
available to Dailey Charter.”
On October 11, OGC issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Dailey as to
why PERB should not certify FTA as the exclusive representative of the proposed unit.
The OSC also provided any other party an opportunity to respond. OGC directed the
parties to support any factual assertions with declarations under penalty of perjury by
witnesses with personal knowledge and to indicate that the witness, if called, could
competently testify about the facts asserted.
On October 19, the parties responded to the OSC. FTA opposed Severns’
Intervention on the grounds that it was untimely, invalid for defective filing and service,
and improper because Severns is an individual rather than an employee organization.
FTA requested certification as the exclusive representative of the proposed unit. FTA’s
counsel signed the response under penalty of perjury.
Dailey also responded to the OSC on October 19, asserting as follows: “Dailey
does not take a position as to whether FTA or another intervening unit should be the
exclusive representative of its certificated employees. However, Dailey strongly
believes that this decision should be one that is made by its classroom teachers who
will be most impacted by the decision. As explained herein, Dailey’s teachers have
clearly attempted in good faith to file an intervention petition challenging FTA as the
exclusive representative . . . Dailey denied recognition to FTA based on this
understanding . . . .” Dailey added that on August 15, Severns “advised Dailey that a
Request for Intervention would be filed by Dailey’s current teaching staff, who oppose
representation by FTA . . . . While Ms. Severns advised Dailey of the petition and

6
informed Dailey that it was submitted to PERB, she did not formally file a copy of the
petition with Dailey seemingly due to a misunderstanding of PERB’s processes.”
Dailey did not indicate that it doubted the appropriateness of the proposed unit.
Jeanne Pentorali, Dailey’s Executive Director, signed the unsworn response.
On October 27, OGC sent the parties and Severns a letter that acknowledged
the parties’ responses to the OSC and provided any interested party an opportunity to
reply. Neither Dailey, FTA, Severns, or any other person or entity filed a reply.
On November 15, OGC issued the AD certifying FTA as the exclusive
representative of the proposed unit pursuant to PERB Regulation 33485.
On November 21, Severns submitted a letter purporting to appeal the AD. FTA
responded to Severns’ appeal on December 1. On December 4, PERB notified the
parties that the filings were complete.
DISCUSSION
When appealing an administrative determination, the appellant must
demonstrate how or why the challenged decision departs from the Board’s precedents
or regulations. (City and County of San Francisco (2022) PERB Order No. Ad-497-M,
p. 15.) To the extent Severns asks us, in part, to review OGC’s proof-of-support
determination and OGC’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing, on those issues
we apply an abuse of discretion standard. (Id. at p. 23; Central Basin Municipal Water
District (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-486-M, p. 9 (Central Basin).) Here, Severns
contends that a majority of Dailey’s teachers and teachers on special assignment do
not wish to be represented by FTA. She also argues that she timely filed the
Intervention and that she, along with other “teachers who were included in the

7
Intervention,” were “acting as a collective group” to represent themselves. For the
reasons we explain below, we find Severns’ arguments unsuccessful.
I. 	OGC Properly Certified FTA as the Exclusive Representative
Under EERA, an employee organization may become the exclusive
representative for the employees of an appropriate unit by filing a request with a public
school employer alleging that a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit wish
to be represented by such organization, providing proof of such support to PERB, and
asking the public school employer to recognize it. (§ 3544, subds. (a), (b); PERB Reg.
33050, subds. (a)-(c).) If PERB determines that the petitioning organization submitted
adequate proof of support, the public school employer must grant the request for
recognition unless, as relevant here, it doubts the appropriateness of the petitioned-for
unit (§ 3544.1, subd. (a); PERB Reg. 33190, subd. (d)(3)(A)), or another employee
organization either files with the employer a challenge to the appropriateness of the
unit or submits a competing claim of representation within 15 workdays of the posting
of notice of the written request for recognition (§ 3544.1, subd. (b); PERB Regs.
33070, subd. (a), 33190, subd. (d)(3)(D)).
We conclude OGC properly certified FTA as the exclusive representative of the
petitioned-for unit at Dailey. There is no question that FTA properly filed its Petition
with Dailey pursuant to section 3544, subdivision (a) and PERB Regulation 33050,
subdivision (a), or that FTA properly filed the Petition and proof of majority support
with OGC pursuant to section 3544, subdivision (b) and PERB Regulation 33050,
subdivision (b). OGC found that FTA supplied sufficient proof of support under PERB
Regulations 33050, subdivision (b) and 32700. PERB determines proof of support

8
based on an employee list as of the time an employee organization files a petition for
recognition. (Central Basin, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-486-M, p. 16; Children of
Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, pp. 14-15 [“the initial
determination regarding sufficiency of support for the recognition petition, once made,
is determinative on the issue of majority support within the petitioned-for unit”];
Regents of the University of California (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-453-H, p. 21.)
Here, that date was May 24. The record does not indicate that OGC abused its
discretion in finding that FTA demonstrated majority support as of that date.
Nor is there any suggestion that Dailey doubts the appropriateness of the
proposed unit, as it did not raise such concern in its denial of recognition, response to
the OSC, or at any time since. It has therefore waived any challenge to unit
appropriateness.4 (Central Basin, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-486-M, p. 11; Regents
of the University of California (1998) PERB Decision No. 1261-H, pp. 35-36.)
As we address post, no employee organization properly intervened to seek to
represent any of the employees in the petitioned-for unit.
Finally, Dailey did not grant FTA recognition as requested. We find that OGC
thoroughly investigated the Petition, determined that FTA met the criteria in section
3544, subdivision (a), and correctly concluded that FTA should be certified as the
exclusive representative of the certificated unit. (PERB Reg. 33230, subd. (a)(2).)
4 No party has asked us to consider the proposed unit’s appropriateness, and
we therefore express no opinion on it.

9
II. 	Severns Did Not Properly Intervene
PERB Regulation 33070, subdivision (a) specifies the process for filing a
petition for intervention:
“Except as provided in Section 33700 [involving severance
petitions], an intervention by an employee organization
shall be filed with the employer within 15 workdays
following posting of the request for recognition. A copy of
the intervention shall be filed concurrently with the regional
office. The intervention shall be signed by an authorized
agent of the employee organization and be on a form
provided by the Board.”
An intervention petitioner must file with PERB proof of at least 30 percent support in
the unit claimed to be appropriate. (PERB Reg. 33070, subd. (b).) The employee
organization is required to serve the petition for intervention on all parties. (PERB
Reg. 33070, subd. (c).)
Dailey refused to recognize FTA based solely on Severns’ Intervention, but the
record reflects multiple reasons why Dailey’s reliance was misplaced.
As an initial matter, PERB Regulation 33070, subdivision (a) requires an
organization seeking to intervene in a recognition request to file its petition with the
employer, but Severns filed with PERB. Even if filing with PERB had been sufficient,
Severns did not timely file the Intervention. Dailey posted the Notice from August 1 to
August 21. The deadline for an intervention petition was 15 workdays from August 1,
which was August 22. Dailey does not argue that Severns filed the Intervention by the
deadline, nor could it make such an argument. According to the proof of service
Severns filed with PERB on September 21, Severns served Dailey and FTA with the
Intervention on September 14 and September 20, respectively. Dailey’s claim that on

10
August 15, Severns “advised Dailey that a Request for Intervention would be filed by
Dailey’s current teaching staff, who oppose representation by FTA” does not constitute
a filing.5 And, as the AD found, OGC did not first receive a copy of the Intervention
until August 23, which was untimely even had it been accompanied by a proof of
service and even if PERB was the only entity with which Severns needed to file. We
likewise reject Severns argument that allegedly mailing the Intervention to PERB on
August 19 should have been adequate because she sent it within the 15-workday
window. PERB Regulation 32135, subdivision (a) provides that “[a]ll documents not
filed through e-PERB shall be considered ‘filed’ when the originals are actually
received by the appropriate PERB office . . . during a regular PERB business day.”
Severns’ alleged mailing date is therefore irrelevant.6
Second, Severns’ Intervention lacked any proof of support, much less the
30 percent minimum in the unit claimed to be appropriate, that section 3544.1,
subdivision (b) and PERB Regulation 33070, subdivision (b) require. (See § 3544.1,
subd. (b) [“The claim shall be evidenced by current dues deductions authorizations or
5 Even if Dailey’s statements could resolve Severns’ untimeliness issue, we
would ascribe little to no significance to Pentorali’s written statement, as it was not
signed under the penalty of perjury, as directed by the OSC.
6 Moreover, PERB Regulation 32110, subdivision (a) mandates that all parties
file through ePERB after the initial filing of a case, making an exception only for an
unrepresented individual. For such an individual, which PERB Regulation 32110,
subdivision (b) defines as “an individual natural person not represented by an attorney
or a union representative,” electronic filing is available but not mandatory. (PERB Reg.
32110, subd. (b).) Because an intervention is not an initial filing in a case, and must be
filed by an organization, Severns was required to file the Intervention via ePERB,
which she did not do.

11
other evidence such as notarized membership lists, or membership cards, or petitions
signed by employees in the unit indicating their desire to be represented by the
organization”].) That Severns’ Intervention is based purely on opposition to
unionization, as opposed to support for another organization, is yet another reason the
Intervention was invalid.
Finally, in spite of Severns’ attempts to explain otherwise, Severns is not an
employee organization and did not file the Intervention on behalf of such an
organization. EERA limits intervention to an employee organization “that includes
employees of a public school employer and that has as one of its primary purposes
representing those employees in their relations with that public school employer.”
(§ 3540.1, subd. (d).) An “employee organization” also includes “any person of the
organization authorized to act on its behalf.” (Ibid.) PERB Regulation 33070,
subdivision (a) similarly provides, “an intervention by an employee organization shall
be filed with the employer.” (Italics added.) (See also PERB Regs. 32001, subd. (b)
[defining “intervening organization” and “intervenor” as meaning either “[a]n employee
organization filing a competing claim of representation or a challenge to the
appropriateness of the unit pursuant to Government Code Section 3544.1(b)” or “[a]n
employee organization filing a request to appear on the ballot following the filing of an
employee petition for a representation election pursuant to Government Code Section
3544.3”]; 33070, subd. (c) [“[c]oncurrent with the filing of the intervention, the
employee organization shall serve a copy of the intervention, excluding the proof of
support, on the parties and the regional office”].) Because Severns filed as an

12
individual rather than as an employee organization or on behalf of an employee
organization, Severns did not have standing to file a petition for intervention.
In sum, the Intervention opposed representation by FTA, seeking for the
individual employees to remain unrepresented. Because FTA established majority
support as of the date it requested recognition, the only mechanism for Severns to
pursue her goal is to file a petition for decertification under PERB’s regulations, during
a valid timeframe and supported by adequate proof of support.7
For the foregoing reasons, Severns did not properly intervene in the request for
recognition.
ORDER
Darcey Severns’ appeal of the Office of the General Counsel’s administrative
determination certifying the Fresno Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (FTA) as the
exclusive representative of a proposed unit of certificated teachers and other
certificated classroom support professionals at Dailey Elementary Charter School is
DENIED. FTA is certified as the exclusive representative of all certificated teachers
and other certificated classroom support professionals in the following unit:
7 Notably, there is no evidence of any employees signing revocations of their
prior proof of support. But even if Severns had submitted such evidence around the
time of her attempts to intervene, and assuming for the sake of argument that
revocations are permissible in limited circumstances (see Morongo Basin Transit
Authority (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-430-M, p. 14), any such revocations would be
irrelevant if submitted after FTA filed its Petition. (Central Basin, supra, PERB Order
No. Ad-486-M, p. 16.)

13
Title of Unit: Certificated Unit
Shall INCLUDE: All certificated teachers and other certificated classroom
support professionals.
Shall EXCLUDE: All administrative and classified staff.
Members Krantz and Nazarian joined in this Decision.

1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
FRESNO TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
(FTA/CTA/NEA),
Petitioner,
and
DAILEY ELEMENTARY CHARTER SCHOOL,
Employer,
REPRESENTATION
CASE NO. SA-RR-1211-E
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
November 15, 2023
Appearances: Jeanne Pentorali, Executive Director for Dailey Elementary Charter
School; Theresa Witherspoon, Staff Attorney for California Teachers Association;
Latisha Harris, Fresno Teachers Association.
Before Fernando A. Reyes, Regional Attorney.
INTRODUCTION
Fresno Teachers Association (FTA/CTA/NEA) (hereinafter, FTA) filed a
Request for Recognition (Request) with Dailey Elementary Charter School (Dailey), for
a proposed unit of certificated employees. Following a determination from the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) that FTA had demonstrated adequate
support within the unit, FTA petitioned for PERB to investigate and determine whether
FTA should be certified as the exclusive representative of employees in the proposed
unit. For the reasons discussed below, FTA shall be certified as the exclusive
representative.

2
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 24, 2023,1 PERB received a copy of the Request, pursuant to PERB
Regulation 33050,2 from FTA for a unit of certificated teachers and other certificated
classroom support professionals. Along with its Request, FTA also submitted to
PERB its proof of employee support.
On June 6, Dailey filed a written statement notifying PERB that no employee
organization had been recognized or certified as the exclusive representative of
employees in the proposed unit, and that the Notice of Representation Petition
(Notice) was posted on June 5 and would remain posted until June 23.
On June 22, Dailey filed an updated written statement notifying PERB that the
Notice would be posted at Dailey from August 1 through August 21.3
1 All dates are in 2023.
2 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq. The text of PERB’s regulations may be found at
www.perb.ca.gov.
3 Dailey notes in both its written statement filed on June 22 and its response to
the OSC filed on October 19, that PERB requested that Dailey delay posting the
Notice until the start of the next academic year. The undersigned Board agent
(undersigned) takes this opportunity to clarify the communication with Dailey regarding
posting of the Notice and the posting period. On May 26, the undersigned received an
e-mail from Theresa Witherspoon, counsel for FTA, seeking to clarify whether the 15-
workday Notice posting period should include only workdays during the academic
year, and whether the posting period would need to include days in the beginning of
the 2023-2024 academic year. After Dailey filed its written statement on June 6, the
undersigned contacted Dailey and spoke with Executive Director Jeanne Pentorali
(Pentorali) to inquire whether the posting period outlined in the written statement
included 15 workdays as defined by PERB Regulation 32085(a). The undersigned
then clarified that Dailey could include workdays in the 2023-2024 academic year in
the calculation of the posting period, so long as the Notice remained posted for 15
workdays in compliance with PERB Regulation 33060. Pentorali noted that she

3
On August 22, PERB notified the parties in writing that review of the proof of
support submitted by FTA resulted in the administrative determination that the support
is sufficient to meet the requirements of PERB Regulation 33050(b). PERB also
notified the parties that since FTA had evidenced majority support and no valid
intervention had been filed, recognition must be granted unless Dailey doubted the
appropriateness of the unit. (EERA § 3544.1;4 PERB Reg. 33480.) Dailey was
directed to file a decision pursuant to PERB Regulation 33190 within 15 calendar days
following the service of the proof of support determination on August 22.
On August 23, PERB received a copy of an Intervention Petition (Intervention)
signed by Darcey Severns (Severns), which did not include proof of service showing
that the Intervention had been served on Dailey and FTA. On September 14, PERB
issued a Notice of Deficient Document Submission, and requested that Severns
submit proof of service of the Intervention.
On September 20, FTA filed with PERB a letter requesting an investigation
pursuant to PERB Regulation 33230, following Dailey’s failure to file its decision within
15 calendar days following service of the proof of support determination. FTA
asserted that Dailey had not informed FTA of any concerns regarding the Request.
intended to post the Notice in the new academic year in addition to the days if had
been posted in June. At no point did the undersigned request or direct Dailey to
postpone posting the Notice until the new academic year began in August. The
undersigned confirmed with Dailey that the Notice was cumulatively posted for at least
15 workdays beginning on June 5, and including at least June 5 through 6 and August
1 through 21.
4 “EERA” refers to the Educational Employment Relations Act, which is codified
at Government Code section 3540 et seq. All statutory references are to the
Government Code, unless otherwise specified.

4
FTA requested that PERB determine that the petitioned-for unit is appropriate and
order Dailey to recognize FTA as the exclusive representative.
On September 21, PERB received a completed proof of service form stating
that on September 14, Severns served the Intervention on Dailey and FTA.
On September 22, Dailey filed a Recognition Decision (Decision) denying
recognition because an intervention was filed,5 and requested that PERB resolve the
dispute. In its Decision, Dailey explained that it “was informed by teachers that an
intervention petition was submitted to PERB, and a copy of the intervention petition
was made available to Dailey,” but did not indicate when the Intervention was filed
with Dailey. Dailey did not doubt the appropriateness of the unit proposed by the
Intervention and did not include a copy of the Intervention with its Decision.
On October 11, the undersigned Board agent issued an Order to Show Cause
(OSC) as to why PERB should not certify FTA as the exclusive representative of the
proposed unit.
On October 19, Dailey and FTA filed separate responses to the OSC. Dailey’s
response did not take a position as to whether FTA or another intervening entity
should be the exclusive representative of the proposed unit, but failed to grant FTA
recognition and requested that PERB conduct an election to decide the exclusive
representative. FTA requested that Severns not be permitted to intervene, and
requested that PERB certify FTA as the exclusive representative of the proposed unit.
5 In its Decision, Dailey responded “Yes” to the written question: “Were any
interventions filed within the 15-workday posting period?”

5
The parties were provided the opportunity to file a reply to the OSC responses, but
PERB did not receive any additional filings.
DISCUSSION
As discussed in the OSC, an “employee organization may become the
exclusive representative for the employees of an appropriate unit for purposes of
meeting and negotiating by filing a request with a public school employer alleging that
a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit wish to be represented by such
organization and asking the public school employer to recognize it as the exclusive
representative.” (§ 3544(a).) PERB must determine whether the employee
organization has provided adequate proof of majority support. (§ 3544(b); see PERB
Reg. 33075(c).) PERB determined that FTA established majority support for the
proposed unit. Following PERB’s determination that FTA’s proof of support was
adequate, Dailey must grant the request for recognition unless (1) the employer
doubts the appropriateness of the unit, or (2) another employee organization either
filed a challenge to the appropriateness of the unit or submitted a competing claim of
representation within 15 workdays of the posting of the notice of the written request for
recognition. (§ 3544.1; see PERB Reg. 33480.)
In the OSC, Dailey was asked to include in its response whether it doubted the
appropriateness of the proposed unit. The Board has held that an employer that does
not dispute the appropriateness of a proposed unit, after having been provided an
opportunity to do so, waives any argument that the unit is inappropriate. (Regents of
the University of California (1998) PERB Decision No. 1261-H, pp. 35-36.) Dailey
does not doubt the appropriateness of the proposed unit, and therefore there is no

6
dispute regarding whether the unit is appropriate under EERA.6 (See § 3545.)
Regarding whether a competing employee organization filed an intervention,
PERB Regulation 33070(a) provides that “an intervention by an employee organization
shall be filed with the employer within 15 workdays following posting of the request for
recognition.” Dailey does not contend that the Intervention was filed with Daily within
15 workdays following the posting of the Notice. Instead, Dailey explains that it denied
recognition based on its knowledge of what it considered a “good faith attempt” by
teachers to file an intervention petition challenging FTA’s goal to serve as the
exclusive representative. Dailey asserts that Severns advised Dailey that an
intervention would be filed by teaching staff opposing representation by FTA, and that
she had collected sufficient support for the Intervention.7 However, for the reasons
described below, the Intervention was not properly filed.
Dailey reported that it completed the Notice posting period on August 21. The
proof of service for the Intervention filed by Severns shows that the Intervention was
not filed with Dailey until September 14. Despite this, Dailey contends that Severns
filed the Intervention with PERB within 15 workdays of Dailey posting the Notice. As
6 This Administrative Determination shall not be interpreted to mean that the
Board would find this unit to be an appropriate unit in a future disputed case.
7 Although not specifically argued, to the extent that Dailey may contend that
employees revoked support for the representation petition filed by FTA or that FTA no
longer has majority support, that argument is unpersuasive. In determining whether a
petitioner has achieved majority support, the Office of the General Counsel assesses
the proof of support based on the employee list as of the date the petition was filed.
(Central Basin Municipal Water District (2021) PERB Order No. Ad-486-M, p. 16.)
Both the support and lack thereof are assessed as of the same date. (Ibid.) Further,
neither EERA nor PERB’s regulations provide a mechanism for an employee to revoke
proof of support submitted in support of a representation petition.

7
described above, an intervention “must be filed with the employer within 15 workdays
following posting of the request for recognition.” (PERB Reg. 33070(a), emphasis
added.) Thus, the Intervention must have been filed with Dailey no later than August
21, which was at least 15 workdays after the Notice was posted. Additionally, PERB
received a copy of the Intervention on August 23. Therefore, even if PERB was the
appropriate entity with which the Intervention should have been filed, the Intervention
was nonetheless untimely. Even if PERB had notified Severns immediately upon
receiving the Intervention that Severns needed to file the Intervention with Dailey, the
Intervention would have been filed no earlier than August 23, and therefore untimely.
Moreover, even if the Intervention had been timely filed, it was not filed by an
employee organization seeking to represent employees in their relations with Dailey.
Both PERB’s regulations and EERA provide that an Intervention must be filed by an
“employee organization.” (PERB Reg. 33070(a) [“an intervention by an employee
organization shall be filed with the employer within 15 workdays following posting of
the request for recognition.”]; § 3544.1 [the public school employer shall grant a
request for recognition unless… “[a]nother employee organization either files with the
public school employer a challenge to the appropriateness of the unit or submits a
competing claim of representation within 15 workdays of the posting of notice of the
written request.”].) Under EERA, an employee organization is defined as “an
organization that includes employees of a public school employer and that has as one
of its primary purposes representing those employees in their relations with that public
school employer. ‘Employee organization’ shall also include any person of the
organization authorized to act on its behalf.” (§ 3540.1(d).) Here, the Intervention was

8
filed by Severns, an individual employee of Dailey, and not by an employee
organization. Further, Severns did not file the Intervention on behalf, or with the
authority, of an employee organization seeking to represent the employees in the
proposed unit. Rather, the Intervention, on its face, appears to oppose representation
by FTA and seeks for the individual employees to remain unrepresented. Individual
employees may not file an intervention solely to oppose representation by an
employee organization after that organization has properly filed a request for
recognition with adequate proof of majority support. (See §§ 3544, 3544.1.)
For all the reasons described above, the Intervention was invalid.
CONCLUSION
In the present case, Dailey did not provide sufficient evidence to justify why
PERB should not certify FTA as the exclusive representative of the proposed unit.
The facts and record in this case do not support Dailey’s contention that a valid
intervention was filed in accordance with PERB’s regulations.
FTA filed a petition for PERB to investigate whether FTA should be certified as
the exclusive representative of the proposed unit.
PERB Regulation 33485 provides:
“If the Board determines (1) the employee organization
requesting recognition has demonstrated proof of support
of more than 50 percent of the employees in an appropriate
unit, (2) no other employee organization has demonstrated
proof of support of at least 30 percent of the employees,
and (3) the employer has not granted recognition, the
Board shall certify the petitioner as the exclusive
representative.”

9
As discussed herein, FTA has demonstrated proof of majority support of an
appropriate unit, no other employee organization has properly intervened to seek to
represent any of the employees in the petitioned-for unit, and Dailey has not granted
recognition. Accordingly, pursuant to PERB Regulation 33485, it is HEREBY
CERTIFIED as of November 15, 2023, that Fresno Teachers Association
(FTA/CTA/NEA) is the exclusive representative of all employees in the following unit:
Certificated Unit
Shall Include: All certificated teachers and other
certificated classroom support professionals.
Shall Exclude: All administrative and classified staff.
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. (PERB Reg. 32360(a) and
(b).) The appeal must be in writing and state the specific issues of procedure, fact,
law, or rationale being appealed, as well as the grounds for the appeal. (PERB Reg.
32360(c).)8 Within ten (10) calendar days following the date an appeal is served, any
other party may file with the Board itself a response to the appeal. (PERB Reg.
32375.)
A. Electronic Filing Requirements
Except as specified below, documents filed with the Board itself must be filed
8 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. (PERB Reg. 32370.)

10
electronically. (PERB Reg. 32110(a).) Parties filing electronically must create an
account and submit documents through the “ePERB Portal,” accessible from PERB’s
website (www.perb.ca.gov). All electronically filed documents must be in PDF format
and, to the extent possible, text searchable. (PERB Reg. 32110(d).) A document
submitted through ePERB after 11:59 p.m. on a business day, or at any time on a
non-business day, will be deemed filed the next regular PERB business day. (PERB
Reg. 32110(f).) A filing party must adhere to the service requirements described
below.
B. Filing Requirements for Unrepresented Individuals
Individuals not represented by an attorney or union representative, are
encouraged to electronically file their documents as specified above; however, such
individuals may submit their documents to PERB for filing via: in-person delivery, US
Mail, or other delivery service. (PERB Reg. 32110(a) and (b).) All paper documents
are considered “filed” when the originals, including proof of service (see below), are
actually received by PERB’s Headquarters during a regular PERB business day.
(PERB Reg. 32135(a).) Documents may be double-sided, but must not be stapled or
otherwise bound. (PERB Reg. 32135(b).)
The Board’s mailing address and contact information is as follows:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
Telephone: (916) 322-8231
C. Service and Proof of Service
Concurrent service of documents on the other party and proof of service are

11
required. (PERB Regs. 32360(d), 32375, 32140, & 32093.) Proof of service forms are
located on PERB’s website: www.perb.ca.gov. Electronic service of documents
through ePERB or e-mail is authorized only when the party being served has agreed
to accept electronic service in this matter. (See PERB Regs. 32140(b) and 32093.)
D. Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time in which to file an appeal or an opposition to
an appeal with the Board itself must be in writing and filed with the Board. 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 of the request upon each party. (PERB Reg. 32132.)