City of Glendale (PERB A361M)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CITY OF GLENDALE,
Employer,
and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 18,
Petitioner.
Case No. LA-BR-6-M
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. 	Ad-361-M
A p r i l 	1 3 , 	2007
Appearances: Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore by Richard M. Kreisler, Attorney, for City of
Glendale; Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers by Robert M. Dohrmann, Attorney, for
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Shek and Neuwald, Members.
DECISION
NEUWALD, Member: 	This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18
(IBEW) of a Board agent's decision to dismiss IBEW's petition for board review. 	The petition
for board review, filed pursuant to PERB Regulation 60000,l seeks review of the City of
PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001, et seq. PERB Regulation 60000(a) provides:
Any party to a determination by a public agency concerning unit
determination, representation, recognition or elections may file a
petition requesting the Board review the determination. 	Such a
petition may only be filed within 30 days following exhaustion of
administrative remedies available under the applicable local rules.
A challenge to the validity of a local rule may not be filed under
this section and may only be filed as an unfair practice charge
pursuant to Section 32602 of these regulations.
PERB Regulation 60000 was repealed on May 11, 2006. As this case was filed under
Regulation 60000, the regulation is applied.

Glendale's (City) decision to deny IBEW's application to represent a separate unit of crafts
workers. 	IBEW requests that PERB reverse the City's determination and find that the unit
proposed by IBEW is appropriate.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case and hereby affirms the Board
agent's dismissal of the petition for Board review.
BACKGROUND
On October 22, 2004, IBEW filed a petition for recognition with the City pursuant to
the City's Employee Relations Ordinance (ERO).2 IBEW sought to sever a unit of employees
2Section 7 of Ordinance No. 3830 (as amended by Ordinance No. 3848) provides, in
relevant part:
(a) A petition for recognition as the representative of employees
in an appropriate employee representation unit may be filed with
the City Manager by an employee organization.
(b) 	In the determination of appropriate employee representation
units, the following factors, among others, are to be considered:
(1) Which unit will assure employees the fullest freedom in the
exercise of rights granted under this Ordinance;
(2) The community of interest of the employees;
(3) The history of employee relations in the unit;
(4) The effect of the unit on the efficient operation of the public
service and sound employee relations;
(5) 	The effect on the existing classification structure of dividing
a single classification among two or more units; and
(6) No unit shall be established solely on the basis of the extent
to which employees in the proposed unit have organized.
(c) The City Manager shall determine the employee
representation unit using the factors set forth in (b) above.
N	2

in electrical services and power plant classifications in the Department of Water and Power
from a larger unit represented by the Glendale City Employees Association (GCEA).
On November 5, 2004, the City manager informed IBEW that the petition could not be
processed until a unit appropriateness determination had been made pursuant to the ERO.
IBEW concurred that a determination of an appropriate unit was the proper course of action. 	A
hearing was conducted by the City manager on December 1, 2004. 	Representatives of IBEW,
GCEA, the Glendale Management Association and individual employees spoke at the hearing,
and documentary evidence was presented.
On January 13, 2005, the City manager issued a decision dismissing IBEW's petition
for recognition. 	The City's decision addressed all six factors set forth in Ordinance No. 3830,
section 7(b) (as amended), and concluded that the existing unit, which contained the requested
job classifications, was an appropriate unit.
On February 2, 2005, IBEW filed a petition for board review. 	After considering the
evidence submitted, the Board agent dismissed the petition on May 5, 2005.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
On appeal, IBEW complains the Board agent did not specifically analyze each of
IBEW's arguments in support of the proposed unit. IBEW asserts that it "amply demonstrated"
that it is appropriate for the electrical crafts workers to be represented in a separate bargaining
unit. 	Although IBEW contends the City misapplied the unit determination criteria, IBEW's
appeal is virtually an identical recitation of the arguments it provided to the City manager in
December 2004 on each of the six unit appropriateness factors.
33

The City asserts the Board agent reviewed the evidence presented and correctly found
the City acted reasonably and in accordance with the Myers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA),3
ERO and applicable legal precedent. 	The City argues IBEW did not offer any evidence or
legal argument that the Board agent erred in her decision to dismiss the petition for Board
review. The City contends the Board agent endorsed the City's analysis of the unit
determination factors by relying on the requirements in PERB regulations.
DISCUSSION
MMBA section 3507(a) authorizes public agencies to adopt rules for the administration
of employer-employee relations, including the determination of "an appropriate unit."
(MMBA sec. 3507(a)(4).) PERB Regulation 60000 allowed any party to a public agency unit
determination to file a petition requesting the Board to review the determination. 	PERB's
authority to review a public agency unit determination under the MMBA was guided by PERB
Regulation 60010, which stated in relevant part:
(b) The petition [for board review] shall be dismissed in part or
in whole whenever the Board determines that:
... . . . . . . . . . . .
(2) The determination of the public agency was rendered in
accordance with MMBA, the local rules of the public agency, and
applicable precedent.
When evaluating the appropriateness of a unit determination under the MMBA, we
must consider whether the public agency's determination is reasonable. 	(Alameda County
Assistant Public Defenders Assn. v. County of Alameda (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 825, 830
[109 Cal.Rptr. 392].) A local government employer does not need to determine "the ultimate
unit or the most appropriate unit. 	The act requires only that the unit be 'appropriate.'
3The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500, et seq.
44

(Citations)." (Id., at p. 830, emphasis in original; Santa Clara County Dist, Attorney
Investigators Assn. v. County of Santa Clara (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 255, 260 [124 Cal.Rptr.
115] (Santa Clara.) PERB has also rejected a strict "most" appropriate unit standard under a
similar labor statute. 	(Antioch Unified School District (1977) EERB4 Decision No. 37.) The
party challenging a unit determination decision carries the burden of demonstrating that the
decision was not reasonable. 	(Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975)
48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338 [122 Cal.Rptr. 210] (San Mateo); Santa Clara, at p. 265.)
IBEW contends the City erred in failing to recognize a unit consisting solely of skilled
crafts classifications. 	However, the City is not mandated by the MMBA to recognize a
separate unit of skilled crafts employees.5 While the labor statutes governing state and
university employees6 provide a right to a separate unit of skilled crafts employees, the MMBA
does not contain similar language.
The criteria set forth in the City's ERO to determine appropriate representation units
are consistent with applicable legal precedent. 	In Santa Clara, supra, the court identified
- -
similar factors, including community of interest, authority to bargain effectively, and the effect
of a unit on the efficient operation of the agency. The court also looked to factors considered
by the National Labor Relations Board, addressing the desires of the employees, history of
bargaining and public interest. (Santa Clara, at pp. 260-261; accord San Mateo, at p. 339.)
Other labor statutes administered by PERB contain similar unit determination criteria. 	(See the
Prior to January 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations
Board or EERB.
5Furthermore, IBEW's proposed unit included unskilled and semi-skilled crafts
classifications.
6
5
Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) section 3521(b)(6); Higher Education Employer-
Employee Relations Act (HEERA) section 3579(d).

Educational Employment Relations Act sec. 3545(a); Dills Act sec. 3521(b); HEERA
sec. 3579(a).)
Applying the ERO factors, the City found: 	(1) No evidence of any bargaining disparity
that deprived the specified classifications of the fullest freedom to exercise their rights; (2) A
community of interest shared with classifications in the existing unit in uniform benefits and
operation goals; (3) A positive history of employer-employee relations covering a 70-year
period, evidencing a stable and productive historical relationship between the City and the
classifications within the existing unit; (4) A new unit would require additional time to meet
bargaining requirements and friction could result from similar classifications placed in
different units, negatively impacting City operations; (5) The proposed unit could result in a
fragmented workforce and adversely affect the classification structure and the City's efficiency
of operations; and (6) The fact that some skilled crafts employees sought to be represented by
IBEW was insufficient to support creation of a new unit.
IBEW has not met its burden with facts demonstrating that the City's determination
was not reasonable. 	(Santa Clara, at p. 265.) IBEW does not provide evidence showing a lack
of community interest with other classifications in the unit. 	It simply asserts that similar units
in other cities have been effectively represented by IBEW. 	IBEW also points to a request by
power plant personnel for a wage comparison study. 	As the City found, however, the study
request did not demonstrate that the current exclusive representative is unable to adequately
represent the interests of these employees. As such, IBEW has not demonstrated that the City's
unit determination was unreasonable or violated the MMBA, local rules or applicable
precedent.
66

ORDER
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18's petition for Board review
in Case No. LA-BR-6-M is hereby DISMISSED.
Chairman Duncan and Member Shek joined in this Decision.
77