All notes for Subtopic 410.01200 – Contextual Factors
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2835H | Regents of the University of California 410.01200: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Contextual Factors 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 context in which the University distributed the FAQs also supports finding that they tend to deter or discourage employee free choice. The University circulated the FAQs within days of the accretion becoming final, which was a crucial period for Administrative Officer IIs (AO2) to decide whether to join Teamsters. The timing was therefore particularly sensitive to influencing employee free choice. Moreover, the Board noted that the unit employees who received the FAQs were part of a group of employees who received a previous University communication that violated section 3550. That prior communication likely tended to color how AO2s perceived the University’s October 2020 FAQs. (p. 22.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 69 | 10/07/22 |
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 410.01200: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Contextual Factors Many of the school district’s communications to employees showing a preference for the existing nonexclusive representative occurred in the two months after the rival nonexclusive representative announced its organizing campaign. This timing strengthens their impact, as does circulating similar messages on a repeated basis, which would tend to cause a reasonable employee to believe the messages were particularly urgent and important to the school district. (pp. 33-34.) Additionally, the communications were sent against the backdrop of the school district providing essentially all the resources needed for the existing nonexclusive representative to operate, and its pervasive involvement in the existing nonexclusive representative’s internal affairs. This context further supported finding reasonable cause that the school district deterred or discouraged support for the rival nonexclusive representative in violation of PEDD section 3550. (pp. 34-35.) 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. 410.01200: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Contextual Factors Although the content of the e-mails themselves tended to influence employee choice, the Board found that tendency was strengthened by the context in which the e-mails were sent: shortly before and after representation petitions were filed, by high-ranking administrators who had never spoken about the organizing campaign before but then did so in the midst of, or shortly after, a series of similar e-mails from the charter management organization, and using related themes and sometimes identical language. (p. 69.) 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. 410.01200: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Contextual Factors The principals’ and assistant principals’ e-mails contained many similarities in theme and some also contained the exact same language. As two of the e-mails themselves indicated, these similarities caused employees to question whether the e-mails were drafted by the charter management organization or were sent as part of an anti-union campaign. (p. 68.) The Board found this to be another contextual factor that strengthened the e-mails’ tendency to influence employee choice. 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. 410.01200: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Contextual Factors The sudden participation of principals and assistant principals of the charter schools in the conversation about unionization would tend to influence employee choice. Principals and assistant principals had remained silent during the prior three years of the union’s organizing campaign. Then, just as the campaign was beginning to bear fruit, the principals and assistant principals abruptly decided to e-mail employees regarding unionization and the union. Two of the later e-mails even referenced conditions after the filing of the representation petitions on May 2. (p. 67.) The Board found that receiving such an e-mail from their principal or assistant principal about the union’s organizing campaign, particularly on the heels of four e-mails from the charter management organization about the same subject, would cause a reasonable employee to believe the message was particularly urgent and important. (p. 68.) The Board found this to be another contextual factor that strengthened the e-mails’ tendency to influence employee choice. 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. 410.01200: EMPLOYER DETERRENCE OR DISCOURAGEMENT; Contextual Factors The charter management organization sent e-mails to charter school employees between March 22 and May 1. The union filed representation petitions for three charter schools on May 2. The charter schools’ principals or assistant principals sent e-mails to charter school employees between April 27 and May 14. The e-mails thus were sent at a time when the union’s organizing efforts were beginning to produce results, at least at three charter schools. (pp. 66-67.) The Board found that the timing of the e-mails would tend to influence employee free choice about supporting the union. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 82 | 11/03/21 |