REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION – In General

Single Topic for Decision A420M

View all topics for Decision A420M

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

Laborers clearly is an “affected” exclusive representative in that if Local 38’s petition were granted, Laborers would be affected. The language of PERB Regulation 61450(c) is “affected,” not “adversely affected.” Accordingly, we reject Local 38’s contention that Laborers is not an “affected” exclusive representative. PERB Regulation 61450 speaks of “classifications or positions” and not of “work.” Therefore, a petition which seeks to transfer “work” or a union’s “jurisdiction over work,” but not a “classification or position,” fails to meet the requirements of the regulation. PERB permits unit modification petitions that seek to transfer classifications between bargaining units. However, such petitions must be filed jointly by all affected exclusive representatives pursuant to PERB Regulation 61450(c). To the extent that [Local 38] states that it is seeking to transfer “work,” rather than positions or classifications, a unit modification petition is not appropriate. PERB unit modification procedures concern the appropriate inclusion or exclusion of “positions” or “classifications” from a bargaining unit.