Opinion ID: 1215859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Separate Unit Requirement

Text: (2) Section 3545, subdivision (b)(3) requires that classified and certificated employees be in separate bargaining units. The Court of Appeal concluded that parity agreements intrude on the statutory requirements and attempt to erode the separation [of interests and bargaining abilities] by creating equal percentage increases in wages for the two separate bargaining units which are prohibited from bargaining as a single unit. In the Court of Appeal's view, parity agreements effectively include the first unit's wages as an issue in the second unit's negotiations, thereby impermissibly linking the two units which by statute must be kept apart. The Court of Appeal reasoned that a school district has a finite financial capacity to pay salaries, wages, and fringe benefits and that its financial resources must be allocated between the certificated, classified, and other employees by contract between the employer and each of the bargaining units negotiating separately. Each bargaining unit seeks as large a share of the financial resources available as possible for the individuals it is designated to represent. If one bargaining unit obtains an automatic wage increase for its members, that increase necessarily affects the resources available to the other units. The Court of Appeal referred to Loc. 1219, Intern., Fire Fighters v. Ct.L.R.B. (1976) 171 Conn. 342 [370 A.2d 952], in which a statute provided for the separation of police and fire fighter units. In that case a fire fighter unit secured a parity agreement for wage, overtime, and vacation benefits equal to those secured by the police officers' unit. The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld the labor board's refusal to enforce the agreement, reasoning that the police union's right to bargain has been completely taken from it. By voiding parity clauses in circumstances similar to those found in the present case, the defendant board preserves the wall of separation mandated by the statute. The [board's] action will also ensure that the units will be allowed to tie themselves to a rule of equality only if each unit agrees with the other that their interests are the same. ( Loc. 1219, supra, 370 A.2d 952, 957.) We are not convinced by either the Court of Appeal argument or the Connecticut decision. In our view, PERB has the better argument. As PERB stated, [o]ne of the realities of the collective bargaining process is that multi-unit employers must consider the effect of one bargaining unit's contract on the other units, and that parity clauses reflect this need. The Teachers Association does not contend that employers may not legitimately bring to the bargaining table an interest in achieving uniform salary increases or that such interest violates the statutory mandate not to include classified employees and certificated employees in the same bargaining unit. Rather, it asserts that committing such an interest to a written agreement somehow transforms it into a delegation of the duty to negotiate for wages and benefits of the classified unit members as well as for those of the teachers. As PERB noted: It is indeed incongruous to suggest ... that the employer may legitimately bargain for parity in fact, but may not properly include a parity clause in a collective bargaining agreement. Here each unit negotiated on its own behalf. The parity agreement did not require the Teachers Association to negotiate on behalf of the classified unit. The salary increase for which the Teachers Association bargained, as the Court of Appeal dissent points out, may incidentally benefit the classified unit, even though the Teachers Association did not in fact bargain on behalf of the classified unit to obtain the bargained-for item. However, such incidental benefit does not violate the section 3545 mandate to maintain separate negotiating units. Thus, PERB's decision that parity agreements per se or the parity agreement here do not break down the `walls of separation' between the classified and certificated units was a proper exercise of its discretion in interpreting EERA.