UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION – Union Threats; Violence

Single Topic for Decision 2266E

View all topics for Decision 2266E

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

PERB will analyze cases involving interference with protected rights by a union according to the principles applicable to the parallel statutory provision prohibiting employer interference and reprisals; the test for whether statements constitute interference or coercion depends on whether, under the existing circumstances, they reasonably tend to interfere with or coerce in the exercise of guaranteed rights, not whether the employee subjectively perceives the statements in that manner; where charging party interpreted a union representative’s statements about potential “repercussions” with the school district if charging party pursued her grievance with a private attorney as a threat that she believed was connected to a meeting with employer to discuss curriculum in response to alleged student complaints about charging party’s teaching techniques, no prima facie case of interference stated because union representative had no control over the employment relationship and is not responsible for actions of the employer and because there is no basis to conclude that such statements would reasonably tend to discourage her from pursuing her grievance against the school district.