REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200) – Supervisors

Single Topic for Decision 0871S

View all topics for Decision 0871S

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

Supervising Cook I and Food Service Supervisor I classifications were determined to be supervisory classes and therefore excluded from bargaining Unit 15. Legislature intended PERB consider job descriptions, duty statements, or civil service classification structure established by SPB in determining whether an employee or classification is supervisory under the Act; p. 12. In determining whether particular classification is "supervisory," Board may give some weight to scope of responsibilities, authority, and duties described in the class specification, job description, or duty statement created by SPB. They do not create a rebuttable presumption, nor are they typically sufficient by themselves to support an exclusionary claim; p. 13 and 15. The mere inclusion of the word(s) "supervisor" or "supervisory" in the class title, specification, job description, or duty statement is not The mere inclusion of the word(s) "supervisor" or "supervisory" in the class title, specification, job description, or duty statement is not Once there has been a determination (under the Dills Act) that a classification is supervisory, subsequent exclusionary challenges should be made on a position-by-position approach based on the actual duties performed by the incumbent(s) in the disputed positions. The Board split on whether in such instances, PERB should allow SPB, or its designee, the opportunity to review the classification to assure that the positions in question are properly allocated and classified under the personnel classification plan; pp. 13-14. Burden of proof in exclusionary claim is on party asserting the claim.