EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DEFENSES – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2904E

View all topics for Decision 2904E

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

Where the Senate is literally dependent on the District’s support and does not collect dues, the Senate’s lack of other resources alone defeats any defense to a domination charge the District and the Senate could otherwise attempt. (Clovis Unified School District (2021) PERB Order No. IR-63, p. 24.) This is true even without any competing organization present. (Id. at p. 22, fn. 14, quoting Azusa Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 38, adopting recommended decision at pp. 6-7[“it may be an unfair practice to render assistance to an employee organization even if there is no other organization in competition with it.”].) Even if member dues were the predominant source of the Senate’s resources, the District’s support would still be unlawful because it occurred in the context of pervasive domination and interference with Senate administration. Such conduct is inherently destructive of protected rights because it tends to chill employees from creating competing organizations. Finally, the District’s support was unlawful because it was unequal, as the District never offered support to other nonexclusive representatives. While an employer typically need not provide a nonexclusive representative with the same support it has bargained with an exclusive representative, if there are only competing nonexclusive representatives, the employer must treat them equally. (pp. 43-44.)