Decision 2212E – Santa Barbara Community College District
LA-RR-1175-E
Decision Date: October 26, 2011
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Teamsters Local Union No. 186 sought recognition as the exclusive representative of a proposed bargaining unit of certificated supervisors consisting of certificated deans and certificated directors of the Santa Barbara Community College District.
Disposition: The Board determined that the proposed unit was appropriate, with the exclusion of specified managerial positions from the bargaining unit.
Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 67
Decision Headnotes
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.
1309.01000 – 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.
1309.13000 – 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.
1104.01000 – 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.
1104.02000 – 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.