All notes for Subtopic 410.01100 – Content of Communication
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2835H | Regents of the University of California 410.01100: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Content of Communication Even without the presumptive section 3550 violation borne of the University’s section 3553, subdivision (b) violation, the Board found that Teamsters proved a prima facie case of a section 3550 violation. The FAQs tended to influence employee free choice on several fronts. FAQ 2, by asking “Must I join the Union?,” couches union membership in a negative light as a potential compulsory obligation that an employee might wish to avoid. FAQ 3 suffers from a similar pitfall. The question, “Will I have to pay monthly union dues?,” treats the choice to join a union as a financial burden an employee may wish to avoid, thereby emphasizing the cost of union membership without any mention of the benefits. (See Regents of the University of California (2021) PERB Decision No. 2755-H, p. 41 [University’s FAQ regarding union dues framed the Janus decision only in terms of a financial advantage to agency fee payers, eliding any hint that the right-to-work framework Janus imposed may ultimately reduce compensation and protections].) By highlighting these questions and labeling them as “FAQs,” the University suggested that AO2s commonly ask these questions, or should ask them, rather than asking about membership benefits. Spotlighting these topics to the exclusion of others reduced the accretion, and by extension the choice to join and support Teamsters, to an overall burden. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 69 | 10/07/22 |
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 410.01100: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Content of Communication Several days after the rival nonexclusive representative announced its organizing campaign to the school district and in response to concerns that the district was showing clear favoritism toward the existing nonexclusive representative, an associate superintendent stated that the existing nonexclusive representative had served as advocates and representatives for teachers. The associate superintendent also said the school district’s close relationship with the preferred nonexclusive representative is simply a fact of how business has been conducted at the district. Then the superintendent sent an e-mail to employees crediting the existing nonexclusive representative with securing a $4,000 one-time payment to employees, and recommending a salary increase, a two-day decrease of duty days, and increased school district contributions to healthcare premiums. (pp. 30-31.) The content of these communications tends, in several ways, to influence employees’ choice whether or not to authorize representation by the rival nonexclusive representative. First, they create the impression that the existing nonexclusive representative is already the teachers’ established bargaining representative, causing teachers to doubt the rival nonexclusive representative’s status as a legitimate employee organization. Second, the communications suggest that it is the existing nonexclusive representative, not the rival nonexclusive representative, that can achieve better working conditions for teachers because of its close relationship with school district administration. Third, the communications evince the school district’s animus toward unionization. According to a historical school district document, which is given to newly-hired teachers and posted in the school district’s boardroom, the school district is proud to not have collective bargaining. Additionally, teachers reported hearing of a principal telling teachers that if employees signed in support of the rival nonexclusive representative’s petition, and if the area superintendent found out, he would transfer employees to a particular school site where students with behavioral issues are sent. (pp. 32-33.) The school district’s communications, viewed as a whole, tended to influence employee choice about whether or not to authorize representation by the rival nonexclusive representative by strongly suggesting that unionization is against the school district’s longstanding viewpoint and has no place when the existing nonexclusive representative provides the representation the rival nonexclusive representative could provide. Based solely on the content of the communications, reasonable cause existed to believe the school district violated PEDD section 3550. (p. 33.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 93 | 12/16/21 |
| 2795E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Alliance Marc & Eva Stern Math & Science High School et al. 410.01100: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Content of Communication Viewed as a whole, e-mails sent to charter school employees by agents of their employer tended to influence employee choice about whether or not to authorize representation by the union by strongly suggesting that unionization, especially with the particular union, would harm employees’ paychecks, their employment, the students, and the continuation of their charter school. The Board had no difficulty concluding that a prima facie violation of PEDD section 3550 has been established based solely on the text of the e-mails. (p. 66.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 82 | 11/03/21 |
| 2795E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Alliance Marc & Eva Stern Math & Science High School et al. 410.01100: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Content of Communication E-mails sent to charter school employees by agents of their employer indicated that dues would be forced on employees and suggested they would receive little in return. (p. 63.) The e-mails also tended to influence employee choice by suggesting that employees’ wages and working conditions could be worse under union representation. The e-mails suggested that unionization would not lead to increased wages or better working conditions, and that existing employer policies provide sufficient protections for employees. (p. 65.) The Board found that the e-mails tended to influence employee choice by attaching a financial disincentive to union support by repeatedly stressing the dues obligations employees would incur if they exercised their right to join a union, which connected their choice to refrain from joining a union with a larger paycheck. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 82 | 11/03/21 |
| 2795E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Alliance Marc & Eva Stern Math & Science High School et al. 410.01100: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Content of Communication The content of e-mails sent to charter school employees by agents of their employer sowed fear and distrust of unionization, the collective bargaining process, and of a specific union. For example, several of the communications conveyed that the union is “vehemently anti-charter” and spends member dues to support political campaigns directed at closing charter schools. (p. 54.) The e-mails also repeatedly sent the message that union organizers will violate employees’ privacy and will deceive and coerce employees. (p. 55.) Some e-mails conveyed opinions that the union and other unions only serve the interests of lazy employees and “disgruntled” employees with “negative” attitudes. (p. 57.) A couple of e-mails attacked the union for allegedly attempting to block employees from discussing or debating unionization, as well as for allegedly excluding teachers from union discussions. (p. 58.) Some e-mails raised fears that the union would require employees to accept onerous or undesirable provisions of the union’s collective bargaining agreement with another school district. (p. 59.) Several e-mails conveyed that unionization causes strife among co-workers, which would cause administrators and other teachers to resign. (p. 60.) Some e-mails expressed that unionization would hurt the quality of education, causing parents to withdraw their students from the charter schools and imperiling the schools’ future. (p. 61.) On their face, these e-mails conveyed that unionization, especially with a specific union, will lead only to potential negative consequences, such as unwanted terms and conditions of employment being forced upon employees by the union, increased strife among employees, lower quality of education for students, resignation of administrators and teachers, and even school closures. (p. 62.) The Board found that the content of the e-mails tended in several ways to influence employees’ choice whether or not to authorize representation by a union. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 82 | 11/03/21 |