All notes for Subtopic 700.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of any employee organization looks to whether the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the employee organization’s ability to maintain an arm’s length relationship with the employer. In such cases, PERB considers the level of the employer’s involvement in the employee organization’s internal affairs. (pp. 18-19.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 93 | 12/16/21 |
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General To show a prima facie violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d), the charging party must allege facts which demonstrate that the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the internal activities of an employee organization or tends to influence employees’ choice between employee organizations. Whether an employer has violated EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) is based on the totality of the circumstances. Proof that an employer intended to unlawfully dominate, assist, or influence employees’ free choice is not required. Nor is it necessary to prove that employees actually changed their support as a result of the employer’s conduct. (p. 18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 93 | 12/16/21 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General MMBA section 3506.5, subdivision (d) proscribes public agencies from “interfer[ing] with the . . . administration of any employee organization.” While much PERB precedent addresses an employer’s duty to remain strictly neutral when two different employee organizations are in competition with each other, an employer also may violate this clause by interfering in an employee organization’s internal affairs, even in the absence of competing unions. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, pp. 22-34 (Arcadia).) To demonstrate such interference, a charging party must establish facts showing that the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the internal activities of an employee organization. (Arcadia, supra, PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 24.) An employer may not take a position on internal union affairs or put its thumb on the scale in favor of or against a particular union leader. (Id. at pp. 25-30.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2648M | City of Arcadia 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General An employer’s duty of strict neutrality extends to internal union affairs, even in the absence of a competing employee organization. An employer violates its duty of neutrality if it favors one internal union faction over the other in a manner that materially strays from a good faith effort to comply with its duty to deal with the union’s chosen representatives. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2492M | County of Butte 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General The harm that MMBA section 3506.5(d) intends to prohibit includes employers financially assisting one union in preference for another; employers establishing an employee organization to compete with or undermine an exclusive representative; or attempting to influence employee free choice by providing other non-financial assistance to an employee organization. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 31 | 06/30/16 |
| 2493H | Regents of the University of California (Irvine) 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General Group is tasked by outside accreditation agency with providing program oversight, creating institutional policies and developing new programs with delegated authority to establish specific policies and procedures concerning the quality of education and the work environment including areas which fall within the scope of representation. Because it did not appear to “interface” with the employer or otherwise participate with or deal with the employer in executing its policymaking. The group is more akin to the groups where “management has delegated actual decision-making authority” and is not an “employee organization” as defined by HEERA section 3562, subd. (f)(1). Employer did not dominate or interfere with formation of any employee organization. Forum is a mode of communication for employees to exchange information on their work environment and other issues. While arguably there may be some discussion of topics within the scope of representation, no evidence was presented showing any discussion between the employees and the employer. Regardless, such discussions would appear to be a “mere discussion with management, rather than making recommendations to management.” As such, the Forum is not an “employee organization” as defined by HEERA section 3562, subd. (f)(1). Employer did not dominate or interfere with formation of any employee organization. HEERA section 3571, subd. (f) makes it unlawful for a higher education employer to consult with any academic, professional or staff advisory group on any matter within the scope of representation for represented employees. No facts showing that the employer engaged in any consultation with the employee groups and therefore no violation found. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 32 | 06/30/16 |
| 2316M | County of Yolo 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General The respondent public agency violated its local rules in its handling of a petition for unit modification, recognition and decertification filed on behalf of peace officers who no longer wished to remain in a mixed unit when the public agency added those classifications to an existing bargaining unit of investigators rather than recognizing the petitioned-for peace officer only unit; in determining the appropriate remedy in any particular case, the Board is neither bound by nor limited to the remedy requested by the charging party; the Board rejected the remedy sought by the charging party, the exclusive representative of the mixed unit, to return those peace officer classifications to the mixed unit because peace officers have a statutory right under MMBA section 3508, subdivision (1) to a separate unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 04/23/13 | ||
| 2164M | West Contra Costa County Healthcare District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General To state a prima facie case of unlawful domination or interference, the charging party must allege facts that demonstrate that the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the internal activities of an employee organization or tends to influence the choice between employee organizations. Proof that an employer intended to unlawfully dominate, assist or influence employees’ free choice is not required, nor is it necessary to prove that employees actually changed membership as a result of the employer’s act. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 45 | 02/24/11 |
| 1663M | County of Monterey 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General MMBA: Under PERB regulation 32603(d), an employer’s domination of, or provision of assistance to, an employee organization may constitute an unfair practice. Where two employee organizations are competing for the right to represent the same employees, the threshold test for determining whether the employer has unlawfully dominated or assisted is “whether the employer’s conduct tends to influence [free] choice or provide stimulus in one direction or the other.” more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 204 | 07/16/04 |
| 1543E | Victor Valley Community College District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General Board found that community college district unlawfully demonstrated preference to the union representing 140 full-time faculty by allowing it to accrete 350 part-time faculty members into the unit, while the district was aware that a rival union had already begun organizing the part-time faculty. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 111 | 07/23/03 |
| 1308S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General The threshold test in analyzing allegations of violations of section 3519(d) is "whether the employer's conduct tends to influence [free] choice or provide stimulus in one direction or another," citing Santa Monica Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 103; or interferes with the formation or administration of the union; p. 3, warning letter. Section 3519(d) does not address interference with union activities or discrimination based on protected activities; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30046 | 01/27/99 |
| A219E | Pasadena Area Community College District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General The unfair practice procedure is the appropriate procedure for litigating an employer domination/support charge; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22014 | 12/17/90 |
| 1270E | San Bernardino City Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General * * * 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 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 |
| 1105E | Pomona Unified School District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General Charge failed to establish prima facie case of unlawful support to another employee organization because it did not allege any facts showing that release of employee home addresses occurred through an agent of the respondent acting within the scope of his or her authority or that the respondent was directly or indirectly involved with the release of information; p. 2, warning letter. There appears to be no legal basis for finding a violation of EERA if a respondent was merely negligent about safeguarding information; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26098 | 05/18/95 |
| 1073E | Ventura Community College District (Service Employees International Union Local 535) 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General In enacting AB 1725, the Legislature intended community college staff and students to have a recognized voice in college governance, at least with respect to matters outside the scope of representation. However, EERA and Redwoods Community College District (1987) PERB Decision No. 650 require District management to take precautions to avoid infringing upon the domain of the exclusive representative; pp. 7-8. Employers subject to EERA proceed at their own risk when involving or allowing employee organizations other than the exclusive representative to participate in matters within the scope of representation; p. 8, citing Oak Grove School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 582, at p. 18. District violated 3543.5(b) and (d) by providing financial assistance to Classified Senate and openly deferring to CS positions on District violated 3543.5(b) and (d) by providing financial assistance to Classified Senate and openly deferring to CS positions on support was found de minimus. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26031 | 12/07/94 |
| 0867E | Los Rios Community College District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General The fact that District agreed to bargain over released time and reached agreement over such released time does not constitute unlawful support for an employee organization; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22040 | 02/13/91 |
| 0694H | Regents of the University of California (Waters) 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General Collusion of university and union which permitted university to avoid the obligation of passing out contracts to employees does not constitute interference, domination or assistance. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19137 | 07/26/88 |
| 0650E | Redwoods Community College District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General The employer dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of an employee organization and contributed financial and other support to it by: its pervasive involvement in the formation and administration of the Classified Employee Council (CEC); the participation of management employees -- including the district's personnel officer -- as members of CEC's governing board; the presence of employer supervisory personnel at CEC meetings; conducting secret ballot elections for the CEC using employer time and resources; giving the CEC a revolving account and a financial grant to operate; authorizing release time for unit members to participate in CEC activities; giving CEC a preferred spot on the district's board of trustees agenda, while refusing the same privilege to the exclusive bargaining agent (CSEA); and giving the CEC high visibility roles in areas of program review and on several organizations within the bargaining agent (CSEA); and giving the CEC high visibility roles in areas of program review and on several organizations within the more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19018 | 12/28/87 |
| 0542S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration, Mental Health, Developmental Services) 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General In evaluating sufficiency of charge alleging unlawful support for a rival union, factual allegations must be viewed together; each factual assertion need not stand alone as conduct violative of the statute. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17014 | 12/13/85 |
| 0389E | Clovis Unified School District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General Strict neutrality requires employer contemplating change in fundamental matters to provide notice and opportunity to meet and confer to all employee organizations which represent employees affected by the change or alternatively to refrain from making any change until the QCR is resolved. Here, violation of strict neutrality where District met exclusively with one organization while failing to offer to meet with competitor; pp. 7-8. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15119 | 07/02/84 |
| 0214E | Sacramento City Unified School District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General The test for 3543.5(d) [employer domination or interference with formation or administration of organization] violation is whether the employer's conduct tends to influence employees' choice of representation or provide stimulus in one direction or the other; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13118 | 04/30/82 |
| 0103E | Santa Monica Community College District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General Employer unlawfully encouraged employees to join one organization over another by giving salary increase to members of rival organization; pp. 21-23. Board rejects employer's argument that 3543(d) violation requires proof that members switched affiliation; pp. 21-23. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10123 | 09/21/79 |
| 0044E | Mt. Diablo Unified School District/Santa Ana Unified School District/Capistrano Unified School District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General Not domination or assistance for employer to misrepresent to employees that only the exclusive representative was entitled to represent employees in grievance proceedings. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2024 | 12/30/77 |
| 0047E | Pittsburg Unified School District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General Interrogation of union officers over offensive leaflet not domination or assistance. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2051 | 02/10/78 |
| 0039E | Chico Unified School District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General Employer's refusal to sign agreement only if union was designated in a certain way did not preclude union from selecting its own representatives and thus did not violate the EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 1 | 588 | 11/23/77 |
| 0038E | Azusa Unified School District 700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General Where natural consequences of an employer's conduct is encouragement or discouragement of union membership, it will be presumed that the employer intended this result. Great Dane analysis applied to question of whether conduct had effect of encouraging or discouraging membership in union. Violation of section 3543.5(d) also constitutes violations of 3543.5(a) and (b). more or view all topics or full text. | 1 | 587 | 11/23/77 |