Decision A491E – Alliance Morgan McKinzie High School et al.
LA-RR-1292-E and LA-RR-1293-E
Decision Date: March 23, 2022
Decision Type: Administrative Appeal
Description: Employers Alliance Morgan McKinzie High School (Morgan McKinzie) and Alliance Leichtman-Levine Family Foundational Environmental Science High School (Leichtman-Levine) appealed an administrative determination granting petitioner Untied Teachers Los Angeles’ (UTLA) petitions for recognition as exclusive representative of two separate bargaining units of certificated employees at Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine. The schools are two schools in a network of approximately 25 charter schools, and contended that individual school bargaining units were not appropriate because only a Network-wide bargaining unit is appropriate. Based on Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High, et al. (2020) PERB Decision No. 2719, where we considered and rejected the argument that the only appropriate unit configuration is Network-wide, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel rejected the schools’ arguments. Because UTLA had provided proof of majority support at each school, UTLA’s petitions certifying UTLA as the exclusive representative of the schools’ certificated employees were granted. The schools appealed.
Disposition: The Board found that the petitioned-for units at Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine are appropriate. Because UTLA has provided proof of majority support, the Board certified UTLA as the exclusive representative of the certificated units at Morgan McKinzie and Leichtman-Levine.
Perc Vol: 46
Perc Index: 141
Decision Headnotes
1300.01000 – In General
PERB Regulation 33237, subdivision (a) governs the investigation of representation petitions and provides: “Whenever a petition regarding a representation matter is filed with the Board, the Board shall investigate and, where appropriate, conduct a hearing and/or a representation election or take such other action as deemed necessary to decide the questions raised by the petition.” Thus, there is “no guarantee or entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.” (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2013) PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 16.) Rather, after completing an investigation, the Board agent may either “determine that sufficient evidence has been submitted to raise a material issue that necessitates an evidentiary hearing,” or “that no material issue of fact exists and thus that a hearing is unnecessary.” (Id. at p. 17.) (p. 13.)
1311.02000 – Procedural Issues
In reviewing whether a Board agent has conducted a proper representation investigation, the Board generally has looked at whether or not the Board agent abused his or her discretion. (p. 13.)
1311.02000 – Procedural Issues
Because PERB has already recently considered the issue of whether an Alliance Network-wide unit is the only appropriate unit configuration, and this is the only argument presented by the Charter Schools as the basis for doubting the appropriateness of the bargaining units at issue, there is no material issue of fact and a hearing is not warranted. (Children of Promise, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 17.) (pp. 13-14.)
1307.01000 – In General/Definition
PERB determines unit appropriateness based on the facts present when the petitions were filed. (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 27, fn. 27, citing Children of Promise, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 14.) Because the reorganization the Schools argued governed against finding the unit appropriate was not effective until about eight months after the petitions were filed, the Schools’ argument exceeds the scope of our inquiry. (p. 14.)
1309.01000 – In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
PERB’s task when considering a petition for representation is to determine whether the petitioned-for unit is appropriate based on the facts present when the petition is filed. (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 27, fn. 27, citing Children of Promise, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-402, p. 14.) The “petitioning union is not required to seek to represent only the ‘most appropriate unit.’” (Id. at p. 24, citing San Joaquin County Office of Education (2004) PERB Decision No. JR-21, p. 4; Antioch Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 37, p. 3.) When performing this inquiry, we must weigh and balance the statutory criteria to achieve consistency of application and the general objectives of EERA. (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 24, citing Antioch Unified School District, supra, EERB Decision No. 37, p. 3; Marin Community College District (1978) PERB Decision No. 55.) (pp. 15-16.)
1309.01000 – In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
When performing a unit appropriateness inquiry for a charter school bargaining unit, we must weigh and balance the statutory criteria to achieve consistency of application and the general objectives of EERA. (Alliance I, supra, PERB Decision No. 2719, p. 24, citing Antioch Unified School District, supra, EERB Decision No. 37, p. 3; Marin Community College District (1978) PERB Decision No. 55.) Among the statutory criteria, we must also take into account the purposes and goals of the Charter School Act (CSA) when deciding cases involving charter schools. (Alliance I, supra, p. 24, citing Orcutt Union Elementary School District (2011) PERB Decision No. 2183, p. 5.) (p. 16.)