All notes for Subtopic 1303.11000 – Employer Conduct
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A470E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 1303.11000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Employer Conduct The Board may stay a decertification election to decide a party’s pending blocking charge, i.e. whether the employee’s dissatisfaction with their representative is in all likelihood attributable to the employer’s unfair practices rather than the representative’s failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents. (pp. 2-3, fn. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 82 | 11/29/18 |
| A470E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 1303.11000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Employer Conduct In determining whether to grant a stay of a representation election, OGC looks to “whether the facts alleged in the unfair practice charge, if true, would likely affect the vote of employees, and, thus, the outcome of the election.” (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 82 | 11/29/18 |
| A470E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 1303.11000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Employer Conduct Where there is a final determination that the employer engaged in misconduct interfering with a representative’s ability to effectively represent bargaining unit employees (pp. 2-3), OGC may subsequently rely on the determination to find that the employer’s unlawful conduct would likely affect a decertification election and offer the employer an opportunity to show that any adverse effects of that conduct on employee free choice no longer exists, thereby permitting an election. (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 82 | 11/29/18 |
| A470E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 1303.11000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Employer Conduct Where a blocking charge proves an employer engaged in unlawful conduct likely to affect a decertification election, the employer may present facts to overcome the likelihood that its unlawful conduct has affected voter choice. (p. 6.) Employee declarations, submitted by the employer, attesting to conditions as they existed when they filed the decertification petition do not provide any evidence that the present conditions are now neutral as required for a fair election. (pp. 3-4, 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 82 | 11/29/18 |
| A470E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 1303.11000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Employer Conduct The proper inquiry in a blocking charge is not the employees’ motivation for filing a decertification petition but whether the employer’s alleged unlawful conduct would prevent bargaining unit employees from exercising free choice in an election. (p. 6, fn. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 82 | 11/29/18 |
| A424M | City of Fremont 1303.11000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Employer Conduct SEIU is estopped by its agreement to the election to seek a stay based on City conduct known to SEIU at the time it made the Election Agreement. We are disinclined to interfere with the date of an election established via the written Election Agreement, absent proof that circumstances that arose subsequent to the agreement’s creation and prior to the request for stay require it. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 185 | 06/12/15 |
| A387M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 1303.11000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Employer Conduct An employer’s conduct during an election campaign will justify setting aside the election only when the conduct actually affects, or has a natural or probable effect on, employee free choice. The conduct need not constitute an unfair practice to set aside the election. Conversely, conduct amounting to an unfair practice does not necessarily require the election to be set aside. Election objections properly dismissed when no more than a handful of employees knew of the employer’s alleged conduct and thus the conduct did not affect, or have a probable effect on, employee free choice in the election. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 158 | 10/25/10 |
| 2104M | County of Mendocino 1303.11000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Employer Conduct No interference with employee free choice in selection of a bargaining agent where the employer retracted a 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error on employee classifications that had moved to a new bargaining unit and were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. The employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit. The charge made no allegation of discrimination or retaliation, and made no claim that the employer’s conduct had a material effect on employee free choice. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 74 | 04/21/10 |
| 1188H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 1303.11000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS; Employer Conduct During election process, the employer may not grant or withhold benefits unless: (1) operational necessity or factors other than the pendency of the election justify the decision or timing; or (2) the action is consistent with past practice; p. 30. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28067 | 03/19/97 |