All notes for Subtopic 700.12000 – Payment to Employees for Time Spent in Union Activities
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 700.12000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Payment to Employees for Time Spent in Union Activities 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 700.12000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Payment to Employees for Time Spent in Union Activities 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 700.12000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Payment to Employees for Time Spent in Union Activities 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 |
| I063E | Clovis Unified School District 700.12000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Payment to Employees for Time Spent in Union Activities A prima facie case of unlawful domination or assistance was found where (1) the school district’s official policy held the nonexclusive representative out as the representative for teachers, thereby giving it the school district’s imprimatur, (2) the school district’s official disciplinary policy provided that a teacher may have the nonexclusive representative’s representative present at disciplinary meetings, (3) the school district’s organizational chart shows that the nonexclusive representative’s president reports to the school district Superintendent, (4) the school district and the nonexclusive representative jointly develop a yearly survey, which is administered by the nonexclusive representative’s representatives at each school site, (5) the nonexclusive representative’s representatives needed the school district’s permission to revise its bylaws, and before meeting with teachers in large groups at school sites, and (6) the nonexclusive representative sat on several committees with other employee organizations and administrators that provided recommendations to the school district’s board on employment matters. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 93 | 12/16/21 |