All notes for Subtopic 401.02000 – Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2648M | City of Arcadia 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another An employer’s duty of strict neutrality extends to internal union affairs, even in the absence of a competing employee organization. But an employer is not liable for interference, domination, unlawful assistance, or discrimination where it merely attempts in good faith to comply with its duty to bargain—which may require it to recognize one candidate on an interim basis pending the outcome of internal union procedures or other litigation between the factions—irrespective of whether the employer ends up temporarily recognizing the “wrong” candidate based on the outcome of such procedures. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| I057M | City of Fremont 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another The MMBA prohibits public agencies from interfering with the formation and administration of any employee organization, or to encourage employees to join any employee organization in preference to another. Where two employee organizations are competing for the right to represent the same employees, the employer must remain neutral. If an employer does not maintain neutrality, the employer is deemed to encourage employees to prefer one organization over another, which violates the employees’ right to choose an organization free of employer interference. In assessing such conduct, the Board asks whether the employer’s conduct tends to influence employee free choice of organization. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 68 | 10/25/13 |
| 2145M | West Contra Costa Healthcare District 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another Employer’s requirement that incumbent union’s non-employee organizers sign in and wear an identification badge to access non-public areas of the employer’s hospital, while not requiring non-employee organizers from the union seeking to decertify the incumbent to do the same, did not interfere with the incumbent union’s or employees’ rights because the requirement affirmed the incumbent’s status as the exclusive representative and did not tend to influence employees to support the rival union. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 5 | 11/30/10 |
| 2104M | County of Mendocino 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another 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 |
| 1912H | Regents of the University of California 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another The fact that another union may have been prevented from petitioning for certification a few days after another union’s certification did not demonstrate a violation of section 3565. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 117 | 06/26/07 |
| 1506E | Santa Clarita Community College District (College of the Canyons) 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another PERB Reg. 32781 does not allow an employer to enter into an agreement with an employee organization to accrete into an existing unit unrepresented employees where those employees are the subject of a current organizing drive by a rival employee organization. District’s agreement constituted unlawful interference in violation of EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 35 | 01/08/03 |
| 1278E | Long Beach Community College District (California School Employees Association) 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another Where employer included rival employee organization's severance presentation on the official schedule for a week of mandatory peace officer training on the day before window period began, the Board found that the employer's actions gave the impression that the severance presentation was part of the mandatory training or, at the very least, that the employer supported the severance presentation, in violation of employer's duty of strict neutrality; p. 9. Employer statement that decertification presentation was voluntary was insufficient to undo the effects of the employer's decision to place the decertification presentation on the schedule for mandatory in- service training. Employer made statement just before the start of the decertification presentation but made no effort to retract the offending training schedule and took no other action to assuage the appearance that is supported the decertification effort; pp. 10-11. offending training schedule and took no other action to assuage the appearance that is supported the decertification effort; pp. 10-11. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29147 | 08/14/98 |
| 1270E | San Bernardino City Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *EERA section 3543.5(d) makes it unlawful for an employer to "in any way encourage employees to join any organization in preference to another." The test is "whether the employer's conduct tends to influence that choice (between employee organizations) or provide stimulus in one direction or the other"; No violation where the employer tells a union representative to "get the hell out" of a meeting; p. 63, proposed dec. Employer statement of support for a decertifying union not a violation if only made to nonemployee business agent for incumbent union. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29113 | 06/22/98 |
| 1112E | Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero) 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another A public school employer must maintain "strict neutrality" in the face of organizational activity and may restrict the participation of supervisory employees in the preelection activities of nonsupervisory employees in order to maintain a position of neutrality; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26122 | 08/10/95 |
| 0159Sb | State of California (Department of Transportation) (State Trial Attorneys Association) 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another An otherwise valid no-solicitation rule will violate employee rights where discriminatory in scope or application. A rule treating union mail sent to employees at the work place different from other personal mail is discriminatory on its face. In the absence of evidence justifying the discrimination, the rule constitutes an interference with protected rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 5 | 12068 | 07/07/81 |
| 0127S | State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Officers Association) 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another Employer found to have treated all non-exclusive representatives the same when it discontinued policy of providing free on-site office space and inmate clerical staff; pp. 16-17. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11079 | 05/05/80 |
| 0920S | State of California (Office of Lieutenant Governor) 401.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another Board affirms dismissal of charge that Lt. Gov.'s office violated section 3519(d) of Dills Act when Lt. Gov. sent congratulatory letter to organizer of decertification effort against charging party, on grounds the Lt. Gov. not an employer under Dills. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23027 | 01/14/92 |