Decision 1688E – Elk Grove Unified School District

SA-RR-1031-E; SA-UM-695-E

Decision Date: September 17, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 253

Decision Headnotes

1300.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; CERTIFICATION/VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION
1300.02000 – Request for Recognition

New unit rejected and existing unit modified where the unit proposed shares a community of interest with the existing unit in areas of compensation, education, experience, training, working conditions, overlapping job functions, lines of supervision, hours of work, and more factors.

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

Under EERA since neither party proposed a Sweetwater unit, the standard is whether the proposed unit is an appropriate unit. New unit rejected and existing unit modified where the unit proposed shares a community of interest with the existing unit in areas of education, experience, training, working conditions, overlapping job functions, lines of supervision, hours of work, and more factors. The petitioned-for classifications do not share a separate and distinct community of interest that would warrant establishment of a separate unit.

1309.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200)
1309.03000 – Community of Interest

New unit rejected and existing unit modified where the unit proposed shares a community of interest with the existing unit in areas of education, experience, training, working conditions, overlapping job functions, lines of supervision, hours of work, and more factors.

1310.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT MODIFICATION
1310.01000 – In General

The petitioned-for classifications do not share a separate and distinct community of interest that would warrant establishment of a separate unit. Neither the existing unit or the proposed unit are Sweetwater units; therefore, the Board must determine the appropriate unit, which is the largest reasonable unit. Alternatively, EGASA must establish that its proposed unit has a community of interest separate and distinct from other employees. It is not pertinent that EGASA has demonstrated majority support in the proposed separate unit. That the employees in the proposed unit should have the right to choose their representative is unpersuasive because the issue in this case is the appropriateness of the unit, not which organization the employees want to represent them.