CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE – Standing

Single Topic for Decision A478E

View all topics for Decision A478E

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

A person or entity’s standing depends on the legal claim at issue in the charge. The Board has never interpreted its statutes or regulations to mean that a nonexclusive representative lacks standing to pursue an unfair practice charge alleging a violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (a), which makes it unlawful for a public school employer to “[i]mpose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter.” This is because a public employer’s duty to refrain from the conduct prohibited by section 3543.5, subdivision (a) is not dependent on the existence of an exclusive representative. Nor does such a charge interfere with the rights of an exclusive representative to bargain on behalf of the unit. [Citation.] Thus, the presence of an exclusive representative does not divest employees or their nonexclusive representative of the right to file charges alleging violations of employees’ individual statutory rights. The rights at issue are individual rights that aggrieved parties may assert without regard to the existence of an exclusive representative. (pp. 5-6.)