UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2034S

View all topics for Decision 2034S

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

Actions of the president of employee group in maintaining a website critical of incumbent union and collecting signatures on decertification petition that was not filed with PERB did not unlawfully interfere with charging party’s ability to pursue his own decertification petition or to create a new employee organization to represent the bargaining unit. Charging party failed to demonstrate how president’s actions resulted in “some harm” to charging party’s decertification efforts, where charging party failed to establish that he was unable to obtain the necessary signatures to file his decertification petition, or that any bargaining unit member forewent signing charging party’s petition because of the president’s actions. Even if the president’s activities interfered with charging party’s activities, the charging party failed to establish that this activity was not itself protected activity. A respondent’s speech causes no cognizable harm to employee rights unless it contains a “threat of reprisal or promise of benefit.” Under this standard, even if actions of the president of employee group in maintaining a website critical of incumbent union affected charging party’s ability to pursue his own decertification efforts, charging party has not demonstrated that maintenance of website constitutes a “threat or reprisal or promise benefit.”