REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION – Accretion, Adding classification(s) to existing unit (PERB jurisdictions)

Single Topic for Decision A525H

View all topics for Decision A525H

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

In determining which of two competing unit configurations was most appropriate under HEERA, the Board (1) must consider the impact of dividing a classification (Govt. Code, § 3579(a)(2)); and (2) must apply a rebuttable presumption against dividing occupational groups (§ 3579(c)). While HEERA does not define the phrase “occupational group” found in section 3579(c), PERB does not interpret it to mean the same thing as “classification,” since that would render superfluous part of section 3579(a)(2). Analogous logic dictates that there is no presumption against splitting a classification; rather, HEERA merely instructs PERB to consider the impacts of splitting a classification. (§ 3579(a)(2).) The presumption against splitting occupational groups fits best with the other unit determination criteria in section 3579 (including the community of interest factors found in section 3579(a)(1)) when PERB applies the presumption functionally rather than mechanistically. Under PERB’s functional approach, an “occupational group” (such as employees performing case management) can potentially include parts of multiple classifications (such as RNs and social workers), in which case keeping an occupational group together can lead to splitting a title or classification. (pp. 21-22.)