Decision 2212E – Santa Barbara Community College District

LA-RR-1175-E

Decision Date: October 26, 2011

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 67

Decision Headnotes

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

EERA entitles public school employees the right to form bargaining units and be represented in their employment conditions by an employee organization of their choosing. This right is extended to supervisory personnel so long as no bargaining unit of supervisors is represented by the same employee organization as the employees that those supervisors supervise. Employees properly designated as managers, on the other hand, are excluded from the definition of a public school employee under EERA, and consequently denied collective bargaining rights. The Board has long held that a “management employee” under EERA must have significant responsibilities both for the formulation of district policies and the administration of district programs. Applying these principles, Board found four of the disputed classifications to be managerial and, therefore, properly excluded from the petitioned-for bargaining unit.

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

EERA entitles public school employees the right to form bargaining units and be represented in their employment conditions by an employee organization of their choosing. This right is extended to supervisory personnel so long as no bargaining unit of supervisors is represented by the same employee organization as the employees that those supervisors supervise. Employees properly designated as managers, on the other hand, are excluded from the definition of a public school employee under EERA, and consequently denied collective bargaining rights. The Board has long held that a “management employee” under EERA must have significant responsibilities both for the formulation of district policies and the administration of district programs. Applying these principles, Board found four of the disputed classifications to be managerial and, therefore, properly excluded from the petitioned-for bargaining unit.

1309.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200)
1309.13000 – Supervisors

EERA entitles public school employees the right to form bargaining units and be represented in their employment conditions by an employee organization of their choosing. This right is extended to supervisory personnel so long as no bargaining unit of supervisors is represented by the same employee organization as the employees that those supervisors supervise. Employees properly designated as managers, on the other hand, are excluded from the definition of a public school employee under EERA, and consequently denied collective bargaining rights. The Board has long held that a “management employee” under EERA must have significant responsibilities both for the formulation of district policies and the administration of district programs. Applying these principles, Board found four of the disputed classifications to be managerial and, therefore, properly excluded from the petitioned-for bargaining unit.

1104.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ
1104.01000 – In General; Conduct of Hearing

Motion to strike party’s closing brief for failure to serve opposing party denied. By filing brief with PERB in a timely manner, party demonstrated a conscientious effort to comply with PERB’s filing regulations, and opposing party has not alleged any prejudice as a result of having been served approximately one week late. Considering that neither party was given the opportunity to file additional briefs, it is doubtful such a showing can be made. This ruling is consistent with California policy favoring resolution of disputes on their merits.

1104.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ
1104.02000 – Motions

Motion to strike party’s closing brief for failure to serve opposing party denied. By filing brief with PERB in a timely manner, party demonstrated a conscientious effort to comply with PERB’s filing regulations, and opposing party has not alleged any prejudice as a result of having been served approximately one week late. Considering that neither party was given the opportunity to file additional briefs, it is doubtful such a showing can be made. This ruling is consistent with California policy favoring resolution of disputes on their merits.