Decision 2203M – City of Palmdale

The MMBA covers all levels of employees except elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. It neither defines "supervisor" nor precludes the formation of a bargaining unit that includes both supervisory and non-supervisory employees. As stated in Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338, the MMBA confers organizational and representational rights on supervisory, management and confidential employees "without regard to their position in the administrative hierarchy.” In Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, the Supreme Court observed: “By choosing to explicitly include supervisorial, managerial, and confidential employees within the realm of the MMBA's protections, the Legislature implicitly decided that the benefits for public sector labor relations achieved by including managerial employees outweighed the potential divided loyalty dilemmas raised. We therefore note at the outset that any argument which contends that MMBA protections should not apply to certain managerial employees because of problems with divided loyalty must be viewed with skepticism, for that argument follows precisely the legislative road the MMBA declined to take.” (Id. at p. 538; fn. omitted.) Board found no basis to exclude Leads from a unit based solely on their leadership roles. Where Leads spend at least ten percent of their time regularly performing the same kind of maintenance work and using the same tools as their crews, it does not matter that their supervision responsibilities are distinctive. Board also noted that Leads: share a common goal with other employees (to ensure that City facilities are well maintained); have daily contact with one another; and share similar training, qualifications, and skills, mainly that learned working in the field.

The MMBA covers all levels of employees except elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. It neither defines "supervisor" nor precludes the formation of a bargaining unit that includes both supervisory and non-supervisory employees. As stated in Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338, the MMBA confers organizational and representational rights on supervisory, management and confidential employees "without regard to their position in the administrative hierarchy.” In Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, the Supreme Court observed: “By choosing to explicitly include supervisorial, managerial, and confidential employees within the realm of the MMBA's protections, the Legislature implicitly decided that the benefits for public sector labor relations achieved by including managerial employees outweighed the potential divided loyalty dilemmas raised. We therefore note at the outset that any argument which contends that MMBA protections should not apply to certain managerial employees because of problems with divided loyalty must be viewed with skepticism, for that argument follows precisely the legislative road the MMBA declined to take.” (Id. at p. 538; fn. omitted.) Board found no basis to exclude Leads from a unit based solely on their leadership roles. Where Leads spend at least ten percent of their time regularly performing the same kind of maintenance work and using the same tools as their crews, it does not matter that their supervision responsibilities are distinctive. Board also noted that Leads: share a common goal with other employees (to ensure that City facilities are well maintained); have daily contact with one another; and share similar training, qualifications, and skills, mainly that learned working in the field.

In unit determinations, the question is whether the petitioned-for unit is "an appropriate unit," not whether it is "the ultimate unit or the most appropriate unit." (Alameda County Assistant Public Defenders Assn. v. County of Alameda (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 825, 830.)

Unlike other PERB-enforced statutes, the MMBA does not specify criteria for resolving unit determination disputes. In deciding whether a proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit under the MMBA, courts have considered criteria similar to those contained in other collective bargaining statutes, including but not limited to the following: community of interest among the employees at issue, history of representation, and the general field of work.

In deciding whether a community of interest exists among employees within a proposed unit, the Board has analyzed a variety of factors. These factors include job function and duties, wages, method of compensation, hours, employment benefits, supervision, qualifications, training and skills, contact/interchange with other employees, integration of work functions, and goals. In analyzing these factors, the Board has rejected a checklist approach in favor of examining the totality of circumstances. The point in comparing factors is to reveal the interests of employees and ascertain whether they share substantial mutual interests in matters subject to meeting and negotiating.

The MMBA covers all levels of employees except elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. It neither defines "supervisor" nor precludes the formation of a bargaining unit that includes both supervisory and non-supervisory employees. As stated in Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338, the MMBA confers organizational and representational rights on supervisory, management and confidential employees "without regard to their position in the administrative hierarchy.” In Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, the Supreme Court observed: “By choosing to explicitly include supervisorial, managerial, and confidential employees within the realm of the MMBA's protections, the Legislature implicitly decided that the benefits for public sector labor relations achieved by including managerial employees outweighed the potential divided loyalty dilemmas raised. We therefore note at the outset that any argument which contends that MMBA protections should not apply to certain managerial employees because of problems with divided loyalty must be viewed with skepticism, for that argument follows precisely the legislative road the MMBA declined to take.” (Id. at p. 538; fn. omitted.) Board found no basis to exclude Leads from a unit based solely on their leadership roles. Where Leads spend at least ten percent of their time regularly performing the same kind of maintenance work and using the same tools as their crews, it does not matter that their supervision responsibilities are distinctive. Board also noted that Leads: share a common goal with other employees (to ensure that City facilities are well maintained); have daily contact with one another; and share similar training, qualifications, and skills, mainly that learned working in the field.

In unit determinations, the question is whether the petitioned-for unit is "an appropriate unit," not whether it is "the ultimate unit or the most appropriate unit." (Alameda County Assistant Public Defenders Assn. v. County of Alameda (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 825, 830.)

Unlike other PERB-enforced statutes, the MMBA does not specify criteria for resolving unit determination disputes. In deciding whether a proposed bargaining unit is an appropriate unit under the MMBA, courts have considered criteria similar to those contained in other collective bargaining statutes, including but not limited to the following: community of interest among the employees at issue, history of representation, and the general field of work.

In deciding whether a community of interest exists among employees within a proposed unit, the Board has analyzed a variety of factors. These factors include job function and duties, wages, method of compensation, hours, employment benefits, supervision, qualifications, training and skills, contact/interchange with other employees, integration of work functions, and goals. In analyzing these factors, the Board has rejected a checklist approach in favor of examining the totality of circumstances. The point in comparing factors is to reveal the interests of employees and ascertain whether they share substantial mutual interests in matters subject to meeting and negotiating.

The MMBA covers all levels of employees except elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. It neither defines "supervisor" nor precludes the formation of a bargaining unit that includes both supervisory and non-supervisory employees. As stated in Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338, the MMBA confers organizational and representational rights on supervisory, management and confidential employees "without regard to their position in the administrative hierarchy.” In Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, the Supreme Court observed: “By choosing to explicitly include supervisorial, managerial, and confidential employees within the realm of the MMBA's protections, the Legislature implicitly decided that the benefits for public sector labor relations achieved by including managerial employees outweighed the potential divided loyalty dilemmas raised. We therefore note at the outset that any argument which contends that MMBA protections should not apply to certain managerial employees because of problems with divided loyalty must be viewed with skepticism, for that argument follows precisely the legislative road the MMBA declined to take.” (Id. at p. 538; fn. omitted.) Board found no basis to exclude Leads from a unit based solely on their leadership roles. Where Leads spend at least ten percent of their time regularly performing the same kind of maintenance work and using the same tools as their crews, it does not matter that their supervision responsibilities are distinctive. Board also noted that Leads: share a common goal with other employees (to ensure that City facilities are well maintained); have daily contact with one another; and share similar training, qualifications, and skills, mainly that learned working in the field.

The MMBA covers all levels of employees except elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. It neither defines "supervisor" nor precludes the formation of a bargaining unit that includes both supervisory and non-supervisory employees. As stated in Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338, the MMBA confers organizational and representational rights on supervisory, management and confidential employees "without regard to their position in the administrative hierarchy.” In Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, the Supreme Court observed: “By choosing to explicitly include supervisorial, managerial, and confidential employees within the realm of the MMBA's protections, the Legislature implicitly decided that the benefits for public sector labor relations achieved by including managerial employees outweighed the potential divided loyalty dilemmas raised. We therefore note at the outset that any argument which contends that MMBA protections should not apply to certain managerial employees because of problems with divided loyalty must be viewed with skepticism, for that argument follows precisely the legislative road the MMBA declined to take.” (Id. at p. 538; fn. omitted.) Board found no basis to exclude Leads from a unit based solely on their leadership roles. Where Leads spend at least ten percent of their time regularly performing the same kind of maintenance work and using the same tools as their crews, it does not matter that their supervision responsibilities are distinctive. Board also noted that Leads: share a common goal with other employees (to ensure that City facilities are well maintained); have daily contact with one another; and share similar training, qualifications, and skills, mainly that learned working in the field.

The MMBA covers all levels of employees except elected officials and gubernatorial appointees. It neither defines "supervisor" nor precludes the formation of a bargaining unit that includes both supervisory and non-supervisory employees. As stated in Organization of Deputy Sheriffs v. County of San Mateo (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 331, 338, the MMBA confers organizational and representational rights on supervisory, management and confidential employees "without regard to their position in the administrative hierarchy.” In Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, the Supreme Court observed: “By choosing to explicitly include supervisorial, managerial, and confidential employees within the realm of the MMBA's protections, the Legislature implicitly decided that the benefits for public sector labor relations achieved by including managerial employees outweighed the potential divided loyalty dilemmas raised. We therefore note at the outset that any argument which contends that MMBA protections should not apply to certain managerial employees because of problems with divided loyalty must be viewed with skepticism, for that argument follows precisely the legislative road the MMBA declined to take.” (Id. at p. 538; fn. omitted.) Board found no basis to exclude Leads from a unit based solely on their leadership roles. Where Leads spend at least ten percent of their time regularly performing the same kind of maintenance work and using the same tools as their crews, it does not matter that their supervision responsibilities are distinctive. Board also noted that Leads: share a common goal with other employees (to ensure that City facilities are well maintained); have daily contact with one another; and share similar training, qualifications, and skills, mainly that learned working in the field.