Decision 2509E – Oakland Unified School District
SF-UM-758-E; SF-UM-759-E and SF-UM-760-E
Decision Date: December 29, 2016
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The District abolished four existing classifications, of which two were represented by AFSCME and two by SEIU, and decided to reclassify all of the employees into one of two new classifications. AFSCME and SEIU each filed competing unit modification petitions seeking to place both of the new classifications into their respective units.
The hearing officer concluded, based on an analysis of the community of interest factors, that one classification should be placed in each unit. Specifically, one of the new classifications focused on classroom instruction and was more similar to the abolished classifications from the SEIU unit; the other new classification included the physical care of special education students and was more similar to the abolished classifications from the AFSCME unit.
SEIU filed exceptions.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the hearing officer’s proposed decision. The Board agreed with the hearing officer that the community of interest was properly determined by comparing the job duties of the new and former classifications. The Board also agreed that the appropriate disposition was to remand for an investigation of whether proof of support was required, based on the size of the existing units and the numbers of employees to be added to each unit.
Perc Vol: 41
Perc Index: 111
Decision Headnotes
1306.01000 – In General; Requirements
Where the record following a unit modification hearing included insufficient information to determine whether the modification will increase the size of the existing unit by more than 10 percent, which would require proof of majority support among the employees to be added, the Board remanded the case for further investigation.
1309.01000 – In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
When the existing unit is not a Sweetwater unit, the proper inquiry is whether the requested unit configuration is an appropriate unit, not whether it is more appropriate than the existing configuration. Under those circumstances, the criteria of EERA section 3545(a) apply.
1309.01000 – In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
Where there are two possible unit placements for a disputed job classification, it must be determined which unit shares the greater community of interest with the classification.
1309.03000 – Community of Interest
In defining “community of interest,” PERB has considered such factors as job functions, qualifications, training, skills, supervision, frequency of contact with other employees, integration of work functions of other employees, method of wage payment, hours of work, etc. PERB has eschewed a rigid application of these factors and instead assesses them based on the totality of the circumstances.
1309.03000 – Community of Interest
In the community of interest analysis, the Board considers actual job duties, not job descriptions.
1309.05000 – Established Practices
Established practices include the extent to which the employees belong to the same employee organization and negotiating history.
1309.05000 – Established Practices
Although the community of interest analysis generally focuses on present, not past, classifications and duties, where new classifications inherit duties from former classifications, it is appropriate to consider which employee organization represented the former classification.
1309.14000 – Splitting of Classifications
The Board has interpreted EERA to disfavor splitting a single classification across multiple units when the employees within the classification perform the same work under virtually identical conditions of employment.
1310.01000 – In General
A party petitioning for a unit modification must provide proper notice to both PERB and other parties of the correct bargaining unit at issue, as well as the number of employees in the unit. However, where there was no genuine confusion as to which of two bargaining units was involved in a unit modification petition, and no demonstration of prejudice to the other parties, the Board declined to dismiss a purportedly defective petition.