Decision 1332E – Plumas Unified School District and Plumas County Superintendant of Schools and Plumas County Teachers Association, CTA/NEA

SA-UM-645 (SA-RR-563)

Decision Date: June 3, 1999

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 23
Perc Index: 30124

Decision Headnotes

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
201.04000 – Joint, Single or Dual Employers

Both the Board and federal courts have observed that the distinct concepts of "single employer" and "joint employer" are often used incorrectly as interchangeable terms. Federal doctrines of what constitutes a single employer and a joint employer may not be applicable under the language of EERA and the Education Code. EERA sec. 3540.1(k) does not preclude the possibility of 2 entities acting as a joint or single employer. Here the District and County Superintendent were two separate public school employers and did not constitute a single employer for purposes of representation under EERA. The District and County Superintendent were separate legal entities with separate governing boards or authority who chose to share some personnel, but shared personnel received separate checks from each entity. The two governing authorities had separate and exclusive policy-making authority, and the funding sources and budgets of the two entities were separate, distinct and not commingled. They thus independently and autonomously controlled their own labor and employee relations policies. Since the employees of the District and County Superintendent were found to be employees of two separate public school employers, and not a single or joint employer, it was not possible to find that they comprise a single appropriate bargaining unit, and inclusion of the employees of both employers in a single unit was not appropriate under the Educational Employment Relations Act.

1309.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200)
1309.01000 – In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit

Community of interest is not determinative of unit modification petition because 2 separate employers are present. Meaningful negotiation can only occur where the employer has the authority and ability to reach agreement with the duly selected representative of its employees about those matters within the scope of representation. It is the separate economic status of each district, coupled with the exclusive policy-making authority of each district, which determines its ability to negotiate about those matters within the scope of negotiations.

1310.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION
1310.01000 – In General

Community of interest is not determinative of unit modification petition because 2 separate employers are present. Meaningful negotiation can only occur where the employer has the authority and ability to reach agreement with the duly selected representative of its employees about those matters within the scope of representation. It is the separate economic status of each district, coupled with the exclusive policy-making authority of each district, which determines its ability to negotiate about those matters within the scope of negotiations. Since the employees of the District and County Superintendent were found to be employees of two separate public school employers, and not a single or joint employer, it was not possible to find that they comprise a single appropriate bargaining unit, and inclusion of the employees of both employers in a single unit was not appropriate under the Educational Employment Relations Act.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

It would be inconsistent with PERB Regulation 32781(b)(1) to find that approval of the County Superintendent's unit modification petition removes employees from representation by the Association.