Toppenish School District, Decision 10394 (PECB, 2009)


                         STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                   
          BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
                                   
                                   
In the matter of the petition of:  )
                                   )
PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES            )    CASE 22083-C-08-1388
OF WASHINGTON                      )    DECISION 10394 - PECB
                                   )
For clarification of an existing   )    CASE 22288-C-09-1398
bargaining unit of employees of:   )    DECISION 10395 - PECB
                                   )
TOPPENISH SCHOOL DISTRICT          )    ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
                                   )    
___________________________________)


On October 31, 2008, Public School Employees of Washington
(petitioner) filed a petition seeking to clarify a bargaining unit
of certain employees of Toppenish School District (employer).  The
petitioner seeks to include the position of Central Payroll Clerk in
a bargaining unit it represents.  The petitioner's reason for the
unit clarification is that the Central Payroll Clerk position is no
longer confidential.  This matter was docketed as Case
22083-C-08-1388.  A hearing on this issue was originally scheduled
for February 18, 2008.  Upon joint request, the hearing was delayed.
One reason for the delay was that the employer wanted time to
investigate whether the position at issue is a part of a bargaining
unit of central office personnel currently represented by a
different organization.  

On February 23, 2009, the petitioner filed a petition seeking to
further clarify the same bargaining unit.  The second petition was
docketed as Case 22288-C-09-1398.  The petitioner seeks to include
six more positions in its bargaining unit.  Its reason was that
these six positions are no longer confidential.  These positions
are:  Receptionist, Assistant Secretary to the Assistant
Superintendent, Accounts Payable Clerk, Secretary to the Business
Manager, District Mediator, and Assistant to the Business Manager. 
As in the first case, the question arose about whether these six
positions are already represented by a different organization.  The
two cases were consolidated on March 20, 2008.

Since April 4, 2009, three motions to intervene have been filed in
these proceedings.  The first was by an entity called "Directors and
Supervisors."  The second was by an entity called "Classified
Administrative Central Office Staff," and the third was by an
individual, Jose Eligio Jimenez.  In light of the three potential
intervenors, a day of hearing was scheduled for May 12, 2008, to
determine the intervenors' status and to determine if any labor
organization would automatically represent the positions at issue,
if those positions are found not to be confidential.  The
confidentiality question would be reserved for hearing days
scheduled on July 13 and 14, 2009.

On May 1, 2009, the employer provided the petitioner and the 
Hearing Officer a packet of documents relevant to this case.  Among
these documents was a copy of a current Memorandum of Understanding
between the employer and Classified Administrative Central Office
Personnel (attached hereto).  This memorandum appears to be a
current collective bargaining agreement, containing terms regarding
wages, hours, and working conditions.  The document contains a list
of positions included in the Classified Administrative Central
Office Personnel's bargaining unit.  This list appears to include 
the positions at issue in these proceedings.   

In light of this memorandum, there seems to be a serious question
about whether a unit clarification proceeding is appropriate, as it
appears that the positions at issue may be currently represented by
Classified Administrative Central Office Personnel.  

                                ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the hearing scheduled for May 12, 2009, is
cancelled and the petitioner is directed to show cause why the
instant petition should not be dismissed.  The petitioner must file
its response to this Order to Show Cause on or before May 21, 2009. 
The employer and the three potential intervenors may submit their
positions on this matter by May 21, 2009.

Dated at Olympia, Washington, this  7th  day of May, 2009.


                         PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
                         


                         CATHLEEN CALLAHAN, Executive Director