San Joaquin County Office of Education (PERB J021E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION,
Employer,
and
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner.
Case No. SA-RR-1043-E
Request for Judicial Review and
Reconsideration
PERB Decision No. 1627-E
PERB Order No. JR-21
July 8, 2004
Appearances: Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo by Paul M. Loya, Attorney, for
San Joaquin County Office of Education; Maureen C. Whelan, Attorney, for California School
Employees Association.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on the San Joaquin County Office of Education’s (County) request for
judicial review or in the alternative, reconsideration. The County petitions the Board to join in
its request for judicial review of San Joaquin County Office of Education (2004) PERB
Decision No. 1627 (San Joaquin). In San Joaquin, the Board granted a unit modification
petition filed by the California School Employees Association (CSEA) to establish a
bargaining unit comprising the classifications of recruiter, migrant services assistant,
secondary school advisor, support services facilitator and youth advocate within the County’s
Migrant Education Program.
After reviewing the County’s request for judicial review or in the alternative,
reconsideration, and CSEA’s opposition to the request and the entire record in this matter, the

2
Board declines to join in the request for judicial review and denies the request for
reconsideration based on the following discussion.
DISCUSSION
In ruling on judicial review requests, the Board’s authority is derived from the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 section 3542(a) which states, in pertinent
part:
No employer or employee organization shall have the right to
judicial review of a unit determination except: (1) when the
board in response to a petition from an employer or employee
organization, agrees that the case is one of special importance and
joins in the request for such review.
Under PERB Regulation 32500(c),2 the Board has the sole discretion to determine
whether a case is one of “special importance.” The regulation states, in pertinent part:
(c) The Board may join in a request for judicial review or may
decline to join, at its discretion.
The Board’s considerable discretion in determining appropriate units is demonstrated
by the very limited circumstances in which judicial review of its unit decisions may be
obtained. (San Diego Unified School District (1981) PERB Order No. JR-10.)
If unit determinations by PERB are subject to numerous legal challenges then there
would be the possibility of significant delay in implementing the Board’s decisions.
(San Francisco Community College District (1995) PERB Order No. JR-16 (San Francisco);
State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1993) PERB Order
No. JR-15-S.)
________________________
1EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540, et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.
2PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001, et seq.

3
The Board will grant judicial review only when it finds “special importance.” For
there to be special importance the Board must find: (1) there is a novel issue presented;
(2) the issue primarily involves statutory construction unique to EERA; and (3) the issue is
likely to arise frequently. (San Francisco; Los Angeles Unified School District (1985) PERB
Order No. JR-13.)
The County requests that the Board join in seeking judicial review because of the
special importance with respect to San Joaquin diverging from Sweetwater Union High School
District (1976) EERB3 Decision No. 4 (Sweetwater) precedent because it forces negotiation
with both a Sweetwater unit and a non-Sweetwater unit.
The County also indicates in it’s petition, concern that the decision will cause “an
avalanche of requests to establish or modify units based in large part on the nature of the
department or mission.”
CSEA does not believe this case is one of the special importance necessary to warrant
judicial review. CSEA points out these are the same arguments used by the County in the
underlying case and believes the County really objects to union representation for its
employees rather than to the particularities of the unit configuration. CSEA also points out
that when, as here, there is no petition on file for a preferred Sweetwater unit, the issue before
PERB is limited to whether the unit is an appropriate unit. (Lodi Unified School District
(2001) PERB Decision No. 1429 (Lodi).) CSEA argues the sole intent of the petition for
judicial review or reconsideration is to delay the implementation of the Board’s decision in
San Joaquin.
________________________
3Prior to 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations Board
(EERB).

4
In San Joaquin the Board utilized a de novo review of the record and reached the same
conclusion as the Board agent. The Board applied the facts of this particular case to the
criteria for unit determination.
In situations where a Sweetwater unit is not at issue, no presumption applies and the
standard remains whether the proposed unit is an appropriate one. (Lodi; Long Beach
Community College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315.)
The key here is that the Board is not required to establish the “most” appropriate unit.
(EERA sec. 3544(a).) The Board found that the proposed classifications share a “community
of interest” that is “separate and distinct” from other existing or potential bargaining units and
therefore is appropriate.
We do not believe the facts in San Joaquin present a novel issue, primarily involve
construction of a statutory provision unique to EERA, or are likely to be raised frequently.
The Board has great discretion in these cases. Dissatisfaction with that discretion is not
enough. The three prongs of the test for judicial review have not been met.
The Board declines to seek judicial review.
RECONSIDERATION
The County has requested reconsideration4 in the alternative to judicial review. The
request for reconsideration is based on prejudicial errors of fact and conclusions of law in the
decision of the Board and the administrative law judge. PERB does not grant reconsideration
based on generic allegations of prejudicial error (Jamestown Elementary School District (1989)
PERB Order No. Ad-187).
No specific error of fact or law has been demonstrated. The request for reconsideration
is denied.
________________________
4See PERB Regulation 32410.

5
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the request for judicial review of San Joaquin County
Office of Education (2004) PERB Decision No. 1627 is DENIED.
Members Whitehead and Neima joined in this Decision.