EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES – In General; Standards

Single Topic for Decision 2804E

View all topics for Decision 2804E

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

Charging Party alleges she was prevented from returning to campus for union meetings after she was issued a Notice of Intent to Discipline and escorted off campus. The Board held this argument failed for two reasons. First, a directive for an employee not to communicate with her union while on suspension would unlawfully interfere with the employee’s EERA-protected rights. But the amended charge did not allege, nor did the filings contain, the terms of Charging Party’s suspension, so there were no alleged facts showing such a prohibition. Second, even if Charging Party could not attend union meetings on campus, the amended charge did not allege facts showing the school district prevented Charging Party from communicating with union representatives by other means, such as telephone, e-mail, or meeting off-campus. And to the extent Charging Party claimed her suspension precluded her from addressing the school district board of trustees about a proposed contractual equity clause, the amended charge alleged no facts showing that the terms of her suspension barred her from attending and participating in what presumably was a meeting open to the public. For these reasons, the Board affirmed the Office of the General Counsel’s dismissal of the interference allegation based on Charging Party’s suspension. (p. 18.)