REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200) – In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit

Single Topic for Decision 2879E

View all topics for Decision 2879E

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

A hearing is not required to determine whether petitioned-for units are appropriate. PERB Regulation 33237, subdivision (a) governs the investigation of representation petitions and provides: “Whenever a petition regarding a representation matter is filed with the Board, the Board shall investigate and, where appropriate, conduct a hearing and/or a representation election or take such other action as deemed necessary to decide the questions raised by the petition.” Thus, there is “no guarantee or entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.” (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 16 (Children of Promise); see PERB Reg. 33237, subd. (a).) Rather, after completing an investigation, the Board agent may either “determine that sufficient evidence has been submitted to raise a material issue that necessitates an evidentiary hearing,” or “that no material issue of fact exists and thus that a hearing is unnecessary.” (Children of Promise, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 17.) “In reviewing whether a Board agent has conducted a proper investigation, the Board generally has looked at whether or not the Board agent abused his or her discretion.” (Id. at p. 13.) Here, the Board agent determined that UTLA had provided sufficient proof of support and informed the charter schools that they needed to either recognize UTLA as the exclusive representative of certificated employees at the schools, or dispute the appropriateness of the bargaining units. Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine argued that the entire Alliance Network of charter schools constituted a single employer, and that the only appropriate bargaining unit consists of certificated employees at all Alliance Network schools, an argument the Board already considered and rejected in previous Alliance decisions. The charter schools raised no other issues challenging the appropriateness of the petitioned-for units. We therefore found that the Board agent had not abused her discretion by deciding the relevant issues without an evidentiary hearing. (pp. 24-25.)