UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEDURES; COMPLIANCE – In General

Single Topic for Decision A488E

View all topics for Decision A488E

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

The names of any individuals claiming they did not receive the employer’s e-mail notices were relevant and necessary to determine the veracity of their statements. Indeed, under these circumstances a declaration that did not identify the declarant would have questionable evidentiary value, as it would not allow the employer or PERB to determine whether, in fact, the e-mail had been sent to the declarant or whether some transmission error had prevented the declarant from receiving it. The unsupported speculation that the employer might retaliate against an employee who submitted a declaration is not a substitute for actual evidence that a bargaining unit member did not receive the employer’s e-mail notices. Because the charging party declined to produce declarations of employees who allegedly did not receive the e-mail Notice, there was no material factual dispute over whether the employer e-mailed the Notice to the entire bargaining unit. Accordingly, Office of the General Counsel correctly determined that the employer complied with the Board’s electronic notice posting order. (pp. 9-11.)