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

Single Topic for Decision 2782M

View all topics for Decision 2782M

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

PERB applies its interference test to both employer and union respondents. (San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and 8 American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.) (2020) PERB Decision No. 2744, p. 23 (San Jose/Evergreen).) However, because a union generally lacks control over the employer-employee relationship, it will normally have less capacity to coerce or chill employees from exercising their rights. (Ibid.; see also Hartnell Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2452, p. 25; City of Oakland (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, p. 25, fn. 5; Oxnard Federation of Teachers (Collins) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2266, adopting warning letter at p. 6; California Faculty Association (Hale et al.) (1988) PERB Decision No. 693-H, adopting warning letter at p. 5.) Furthermore, except in cases alleging that a union failed to establish or follow reasonable membership restrictions or disciplinary procedures impacting membership, a charging party must allege facts showing that the union’s conduct impacted the employer-employee relationship. (San Jose/Evergreen, supra, PERB Decision No. 2744, pp. 17-18 & fn. 8.)