EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2904E

View all topics for Decision 2904E

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

EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) prohibits an employer from “in any way” encouraging employees to join any organization in preference to another.” Therefore, whenever two employee organizations are competing for the right to represent the same employees, and neither organization is certified as the employees’ exclusive representative, the employer must remain strictly neutral. (County of Monterey (2004) PERB Decision No. 1663-M, adopting proposed decision at pp. 17-18; Clovis Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 389, p. 7 [the appearance of a competing employee organization imposes on the employer an additional affirmative obligation of strict neutrality].) To establish a prima facie case that an employer violated this duty of strict neutrality, the test is “whether the employer’s conduct tends to influence [free] choice or provide stimulus in one direction or the other.” (Santa Monica Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 103, p. 22.) “An employer that does not maintain strict neutrality in the face of competing employee organizations is deemed to encourage employees to prefer one organization over another, in violation of employees' right to choose an organization free of employer interference. (Clovis Unified School District (2021) PERB Order No. IR-63, pp. 28-29, quoting Azusa, supra, EERB Decision No. 38, pp. 7-8.) Strict neutrality required the District to discontinue its financial and other support to the Senate, or to affirmatively make similar assistance available to all employee organizations. (Id. at pp. 28-29.) (pp. 44-46.)