Decision 1505E – Mendocino County Office of Education

SF-UM-585-E

Decision Date: December 24, 2002

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 16

Decision Headnotes

200.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309)
200.02000 – Managerial and Confidential

The Board held that the four clerical employees were not confidential, distinguishing Calexico Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 800 and Hemet Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 820, in that the supervisors in this case intentionally prevented their secretaries from performing confidential duties and, in fact, rarely performed those duties themselves. The convenience to the MCOE of having these employees prospectively perform confidential duties without evidence of past quantifiable burden to the MCOE’s operations does not support exclusion of the disputed employees from the bargaining unit. The Board found that the disputed employees do not have access to or possess information concerning the MCOE’s employer-employee relations in the regular course of their normal duties and so should not be designated “confidential.” Because confidential status deprives an employee of rights under EERA, the exclusion must be strictly construed.

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

The Board found that the disputed employees do not have access to or possess information concerning the MCOE’s employer-employee relations in the regular course of their normal duties and so should not be designated “confidential.”

1309.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200)
1309.04000 – Efficiency of Operation

The Board held that the four clerical employees were not confidential, distinguishing Calexico Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 800 and Hemet Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 820, in that the supervisors in this case intentionally prevented their secretaries from performing confidential duties and, in fact, rarely performed those duties themselves. The convenience to the MCOE of having these employees prospectively perform confidential duties without evidence of past quantifiable burden to the MCOE’s operations does not support exclusion of the disputed employees from the bargaining unit.

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

Under PERB Regulation 32781(b), the exclusion must be strictly construed because confidential status deprives an employee of rights under EERA.