UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION – Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership

Single Topic for Decision 1479S

View all topics for Decision 1479S

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

CSEA’s suspension of member during nominating period violated section 3515.5. Reasonableness of membership provisions are measured on the provision and/or its application. Charging Party did not provide an adequate showing that participation in rallies, distributing literature, wearing union buttons or t-shirts impacted the employer-employee relationship sufficiently to support a finding of protected activity. This case is distinguishable from the ruling in Cupertino Union Elementary School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 572. In Cupertino, PERB held that an employer’s action was motivated by protected acts of the group, then the action is unlawful as to the entire group. PERB did not hold that the unrelated protected acts of some members of a group would automatically be attributed to all members of the group, as was the case in this matter. PERB has jurisdiction, under section 3515.5 to determine the reasonableness of a union’s rules regarding who may join and the dismissal or suspension of members. Unlike PERB’s decision in California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993) PERB Decision No. 979-S, there was no immediate threat or emergency to warrant CSEA’s invocation of its summary suspension procedure. Although Section 3515.5 specifically refers to dismissal of individuals from membership, PERB has jurisdiction over suspensions as well, fn. 18.