REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – Standards for Obtaining Injunctive Relief

Single Topic for Decision I063E

View all topics for Decision I063E

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

Diminution of support for the rival nonexclusive representative resulting from the school district’s alleged unfair practices is not merely speculative or threatened; the declarations submitted in support of the request for injunctive relief show that loss of support had already occurred because of the school district’s current course of action. Several teachers who supported the rival nonexclusive representative prior to its public announcement have since revoked their support. Some teachers did so out of fear that the school district would know they supported the rival nonexclusive representative, and another because he received a position with the existing nonexclusive representative. Other teachers remain confused about the legal status of the nonexclusive representatives, due in part to the school district’s and the existing nonexclusive representative’s statements about the existing nonexclusive representative’s role in representing teachers. And various teachers expressed their concern over school district retaliation if it discovers their support for the rival nonexclusive representative. This information suggests that the school district’s conduct has already negatively impacted the rival nonexclusive representative’s organizing campaign and that it will continue to be negatively impacted if the school district is allowed to continue on the same course while PERB adjudicates the unfair practice charges. For all these reasons, it was necessary to obtain an affirmative order for the school district to place the rival nonexclusive representative on equal footing with the existing nonexclusive representative while the rival pursues its organizing campaign during the pendency of PERB’s adjudication of the unfair practice charges. Such an affirmative order is appropriate to prevent irreparable harm to the rival union by the defection of its supporters and to prevent the existing union’s entrenchment. Injunctive relief was also necessary here because it is typically not possible to provide employees retroactively the monetary and nonmonetary benefits they might have achieved had they been exclusively represented. (pp. 39-40.)