All notes for Subtopic 700.07000 – Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2770M | City of Bellflower 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality MMBA section 3506.5, subdivision (d) consists of three clauses, providing that public agencies shall not: (1) “dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any employee organization,” (2) “contribute financial or other support to any employee organization,” or (3) “in any way encourage employees to join any organization in preference to another.” PERB has consistently held that this provision requires an employer to remain strictly neutral when two unions are in competition with one another. The test is “whether the employer’s conduct tends to influence free choice or provide stimulus in one direction or the other.” Thus, a strict neutrality violation requires neither proof of the employer’s motive nor proof that the employer conduct did, in fact, influence employees. (County of San Bernardino (2018) PERB Decision No. 2556-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 22.) An employer does not tend to tilt the scales toward or away from a union if it merely complies with its legal duty to provide information, or, conversely, honors legally protected privacy rights by instead negotiating an appropriate accommodation of privacy and the union’s need for the information. In this case, however, the employer deviated from such an approach and thereby tilted the scales toward the incumbent union. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 119 | 06/08/21 |
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality An employer that does not maintain strict neutrality in the face of competing employee organizations is deemed to encourage employees to prefer one organization over another, in violation of employees’ right to choose an organization free of employer interference. Because the school district continued to provide financial support and other assistance to the existing nonexclusive representative without offering the same level of support to the rival nonexclusive representative, the district’s conduct tends to encourage employees to support the existing nonexclusive representative over the rival nonexclusive representative in order to continue receiving the negotiated benefits from the school district. Thus, the Board found there was reasonable cause to believe the school district breached its duty of strict neutrality in violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d). (pp. 28-29.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 93 | 12/16/21 |
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality In cases where two employee organizations are competing for the right to represent the same employees, the employer must remain neutral. To establish a violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on encouraging employees to join any organization in preference to another, the test is whether the employer’s conduct tends to influence free choice or provide stimulus in one direction or the other. (p. 26.) Since the rival nonexclusive representative announced its organizing campaign, the school district stopped providing a vehicle and credit card for the existing nonexclusive representative’s use, but continued to provide stipends to organization representatives, release time for executive board members, an operating budget, and use of an office. Likewise, the school district continued to maintain policies declaring that the existing nonexclusive representative is the representative of teachers, including for disciplinary matters. The school district’s survey solicited teachers’ views on the existing nonexclusive representative’s representation. The school district continued to meet with the existing nonexclusive representative about matters fundamental to the employment relationship (e.g., length of the school year, wages, health benefits), and made a significant change in benefits without first notifying or meeting with the rival nonexclusive representative. The superintendent sent an e-mail to employees announcing a $4,000 payment and informed them of a recommendation of a 5.5 percent increase to salary schedules, two fewer duty days, and an increase in the school district’s contribution to its health benefits fund. The superintendent credited these recommendations to the existing nonexclusive representative and the other organizations participating on the committee. (pp. 27-28.) Due to this conduct, the Board found that the school district preferred one nonexclusive representative over another and thus failed to maintain strict neutrality. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 93 | 12/16/21 |
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality The most common type of unlawful support case involves an employer that provides support to one of two competing nonexclusive representatives. The Board usually resolves such cases by deciding whether the employer failed to remain strictly neutral between the two competing organizations. The school district must treat both nonexclusive representatives equally with respect to financial or other support. (p. 22.) Here, the school district provided a high level of support to the existing nonexclusive representative because it is 100 percent employer-funded. Also, the school district dominated and interfered with the existing nonexclusive representative’s internal affairs and expressed a preference for the existing nonexclusive representative over the rival nonexclusive representative, while failing to offer the rival organization the same support. This was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe the school district violated—and continued to violate—EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on contributing financial or other support to an employee organization. (pp. 25-26.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 93 | 12/16/21 |
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) prohibits contributing “financial or other support” to an employee organization. In determining if an employer has violated this prohibition, PERB examines the totality of the employer’s conduct to determine whether its support would tend to inhibit employees in their free choice regarding a bargaining representative or interfere with the representative’s maintenance of an arm’s length relationship with the employer. This is an objective test; it is not necessary to look into the employer’s intent or the employees’ subjective reaction to the employer’s assistance to the employee organization. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 93 | 12/16/21 |
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality The school district’s de facto recognition of the existing nonexclusive representative continued after a rival nonexclusive representative gave notice of its organizing campaign, including by: (1) hosting the existing nonexclusive representative’s webpage on the school district’s website; (2) directing its Technology Department to assist the preferred nonexclusive representative in two elections; (3) offering to have its legal counsel review the preferred nonexclusive representative’s bylaws; (4) allowing the existing nonexclusive representative to use the school district’s survey to poll teachers about their views on the existing nonexclusive representative; and (5) setting up an e-mail list for the existing nonexclusive representative’s president to communicate with teachers via the school district’s e-mail system. The totality of the circumstances established reasonable cause to believe that the school district had—and continued to have—pervasive involvement in the affairs of the existing nonexclusive representative in violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d). (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 93 | 12/16/21 |
| 2771M | City of Long Beach 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality MMBA section 3506.5, subdivision (d) consists of three clauses, providing that public agencies shall not: (1) “dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any employee organization,” (2) “contribute financial or other support to any employee organization,” or (3) “in any way encourage employees to join any organization in preference to another.” PERB has consistently held that this provision requires an employer to remain strictly neutral when two unions are in competition with one another. The test is “whether the employer’s conduct tends to influence free choice or provide stimulus in one direction or the other.” Thus, a strict neutrality violation requires neither proof of the employer’s motive nor proof that the employer conduct did, in fact, influence employees. (County of San Bernardino (2018) PERB Decision No. 2556-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 22.) An employer does not tend to tilt the scales toward or away from a union if it merely complies with its legal duty to provide information, or, conversely, honors legally protected privacy rights by instead negotiating an appropriate accommodation of privacy and the union’s need for the information. In this case, however, the employer deviated from such an approach and thereby tilted the scales toward the incumbent union. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality 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 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality 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 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 68 | 10/25/13 |
| 2164M | West Contra Costa County Healthcare District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality 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. The mere fact that lead worker had authority to perform some supervisory duties was insufficient to establish that lead worker had apparent authority to act on behalf of the employer in circulating a petition seeking to restrict union’s access to bargaining unit employees. Employee’s own knowledge and approval of petition is insufficient to impute knowledge and approval of conduct to the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 45 | 02/24/11 |
| 1912H | Regents of the University of California 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality There were no facts establishing that any misconduct occurred immediately preceding and during the pendency of a union petition for recognition. 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 |
| 1663M | County of Monterey 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality County violated MMBA by granting registration to a rival employee organization under its local rules where registration carries a presumptive finding that the incumbent employee organization’s representative is inadequate and the incumbent employee organization had no opportunity to participate in the registration process. However, County’s identical actions with respect to peace officers did not violate MMBA since peace officers are entitled by statute to a separate bargaining unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 204 | 07/16/04 |
| 1506E | Santa Clarita Community College District (College of the Canyons) 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality Employer violates (d) by accreting unrepresented employees into an existing bargaining unit while a different union was organizing the unrepresented employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 35 | 01/08/03 |
| 1543E | Victor Valley Community College District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality 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 |
| 1278E | Long Beach Community College District (California School Employees Association) 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality 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 it supported the decertification effort; pp. 10-11. offending training schedule and took no other action to assuage the appearance that it 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 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality * * * 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 decision more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29113 | 06/22/98 |
| 1073E | Ventura Community College District (Service Employees International Union Local 535) 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality District violated 3543.5(b) and (d) by providing financial assistance to Classified Senate and openly deferring to CS positions on negotiable topics. However, placement of CS on District Board agenda consistent with intent of AB 1725. Clerical and support was found de minimus. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26031 | 12/07/94 |
| 0833E | Los Rios Community College District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality Failure of charging party to allege facts to show district's refusal to carry personal unstamped mail tended to influence employees free choice or provided stimulus in one direction or another to employee organizations is grounds for dismissal of section 3543.5(d) charges; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21160 | 08/10/90 |
| 0795E | Jamestown Elementary School District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality No violation where no evidence that content of employee meetings at which decertification was discussed was sanctioned or encouraged by employer; no evidence that access afforded to dissident union not afforded to incumbent or that employer otherwise favored dissident group; pp. 19-20, proposed dec. (Writ summarily denied.) more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21069 | 03/20/90 |
| 0389E | Clovis Unified School District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality By meeting and conferring with Faculty Senate, by providing Faculty Senate with financial assistance and support and by making express statements favoring the Senate, District created impression that it favored Senate Association, thereby unlawfully encouraging employees to support that organization. Fact that Faculty Senate was not listed on ballot is inconsequential; pp. 4-5. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15119 | 07/02/84 |
| 0214E | Sacramento City Unified School District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality PERB will find a 3543.5(a) violation when employer's acts tend to result in some harm to employee rights and the employer is unable to justify its actions by proving operational necessity. Negotiation sessions between District and an organization of supervisors, created at District's suggestion, during election campaign of another union seeking to represent supervisors did, in fact, tend to harm protected rights under the Act; p. 7. Operational necessity argument - that District was compelled to meet with supervisors pursuant to EERA section 3543.1(a) - rejected. District met with supervisors exclusively during question concerning representation. Strict neutrality by Employer, required under circumstances, not shown; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13118 | 04/30/82 |
| 0159Sb | State of California (Department of Transportation) (State Trial Attorneys Association) 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality No favoritism found in State employer's rule restricting employee organization access to mail system. Hearing officer speculation about the disparate effects of the rule on various organizations is no substitute for evidence. more or view all topics or full text. | 5 | 12068 | 07/07/81 |
| 0103E | Santa Monica Community College District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality Employer unlawfully encouraged employees to join one organization over another by giving salary increase to members of rival organization; pp. 21-23. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10123 | 09/21/79 |
| 0054E | Hartnell Community College District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality District could grant voluntary recognition prior to scheduled unit determination hearing because QCR not raised merely by interest shown by competing organization, where competing organization had not yet filed petition to join hearing. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2117 | 06/05/78 |
| 0038E | Azusa Unified School District 700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality Clearly unlawful to render assistance in such a way as to discriminate against another competing employee organization. Employer's extension of benefits to union in spirit of cooperation which doesn't constitute employer control or influence not illegal. Where more than one union involved employer must be strictly neutral in extending organizational opportunities. more or view all topics or full text. | 1 | 587 | 11/23/77 |