EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT – Defenses

Single Topic for Decision 2795E

View all topics for Decision 2795E

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

As for the defense that the charter management organization was responding to employees’ complaints about the union’s aggressive organizing campaign, the charter schools provided scant evidence that employees complained to school management about the union’s organizing tactics. The only such evidence is a statement in the charter management organization’s March 22 e-mail that it had “received complaints from many of you” about the union’s visits to employee’s homes, and statements by a principal that some employees lodged complaints about the union’s “bullying during organizing.” These hearsay reports of complaints being made to management are insufficient to support a finding that such complaints were made. Even if there were actual complaints, the vague descriptions of the complaints in these two e-mails provide insufficient foundation or detail to assess what steps such complaints could have necessitated. The Board found that the charter schools did not establish that their e-mails were narrowly tailored to address the purported employee complaints, especially considering that, in addition to informing employees of their rights regarding union solicitation, the e-mails expressed the charter schools’ opinion that the union’s solicitation conduct was coercive and deceitful. (pp. 71-72.)