Decision 2587E – Los Rios Community College District

SA-SV-186-E

Decision Date: October 2, 2018

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description: Under Sweetwater Union High School District (1976) EERB Decision No. 4 (Sweetwater), there are three presumptively appropriate bargaining units for classified employees of school districts, including inter alia an operations-support services unit.  The petitioner sought to sever three classifications who work within an existing support services unit to establish a separate campus police officers unit.  The Hearing Officer issued a proposed decision granting the Severance Petition. 

Disposition: On appeal, the Board declined to adopt the proposed decision and dismissed the Severance Petition, finding that the petitioner did not meet its burden of showing that the proposed campus police officers unit is more appropriate than the presumptively appropriate Sweetwater support services unit.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 61

Decision Headnotes

1308.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE
1308.01000 – In General

Severance petition denied where association sought to create a new bargaining unit by severing three police department classifications from the larger support services unit. Under Sweetwater Union High School District (1976) EERB Decision No. 4 (Sweetwater), there are three presumptively appropriate bargaining units for classified employees of school districts, including inter alia an operations-support services unit. Petitioner did not meet its burden of showing that the proposed campus police officers unit is more appropriate than the presumptively appropriate Sweetwater support services unit.

1308.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE
1308.01000 – In General

In determining unit appropriateness when assessing severance petition, following factors considered: community of interest among employees, efficiency of employer operations, and established practices, including both negotiating history and the extent to which employees belong to the same employee organization. Gov. Code, § 3545, subd. (a). Negotiating history is of particular importance when considering a severance request, as “a stable negotiating relationship will not be lightly disturbed.” (Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 165, p. 6.)

1308.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE
1308.01000 – In General

In seeking to divide a presumptively appropriate Sweetwater unit, the petitioner must show that there has been a change of circumstances sufficient to justify a variation of an established unit. (Los Angeles Unified School District (1993) PERB Order No. Ad-250, p. 6.)

1308.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE
1308.01000 – In General

A petitioner seeking to sever classifications from an existing unit must show not only that the group to be severed has a community of interest among themselves, but must also establish that their community of interest is not shared with the larger group. (Oakland Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1464, adopting proposed decision at p. 21.)

1308.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; SEVERANCE
1308.01000 – In General

“Efficiency of operations” criterion militates against severance only if there is concrete evidence that an employer’s operational efficiency will be unduly impaired by an additional set of negotiations. (Long Beach Community College District, (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315, adopting proposed decision at p. 12; Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 165, p. 8.)

1309.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200)
1309.04000 – Efficiency of Operation

“Efficiency of operations” criterion militates against severance only if there is concrete evidence that an employer’s operational efficiency will be unduly impaired by an additional set of negotiations. (Long Beach Community College District, (1999) PERB Decision No. 1315, adopting proposed decision at p. 12; Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 165, p. 8.)