All notes for Subtopic 701.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2904E |
Clovis Unified School District
701.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DEFENSES; In General
Benign or malevolent intent is irrelevant to remedying employer domination. (Redwoods Community College District (1987) PERB Decision No. 650, adopting proposed decision at p. 61(Redwoods) [“Section 3543.5(d) unqualifiedly forbids unlawful support, interference and the kinds of actions taken by the [employer] which otherwise tend to influence employee choice, be they benevolent or malevolent”].) Legally, intent is irrelevant to domination violations. And compliance with the law after a rival nonexclusive representative announced its organizing campaign would not have erased decades of entrenched favoritism and the resulting severely tilted playing field. As the NLRB noted in Electromation, Inc. (1992) 309 NLRB 990, disestablishment is proper “even if a concededly employer-dominated organization were altered to remove the elements of unlawful domination,” because removing such ongoing illegality does not transform the organization into a lawful one. (Id. at pp. 995-996, fn. 24, citing National Labor Relations Bd. v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (1939) 308 U.S. 241.) The Board determined that to secure free choice in the District for the first time since EERA’s passage almost five decades ago, it must break the ties between the District and the Senate. (Redwoods, supra, PERB Decision No. 650, adopting proposed decision at pp. 63-64.) (pp. 60-62.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 14 | 06/20/24 |
| 2904E |
Clovis Unified School District
701.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DEFENSES; In General
Where the Senate is literally dependent on the District’s support and does not collect dues, the Senate’s lack of other resources alone defeats any defense to a domination charge the District and the Senate could otherwise attempt. (Clovis Unified School District (2021) PERB Order No. IR-63, p. 24.) This is true even without any competing organization present. (Id. at p. 22, fn. 14, quoting Azusa Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 38, adopting recommended decision at pp. 6-7[“it may be an unfair practice to render assistance to an employee organization even if there is no other organization in competition with it.”].) Even if member dues were the predominant source of the Senate’s resources, the District’s support would still be unlawful because it occurred in the context of pervasive domination and interference with Senate administration. Such conduct is inherently destructive of protected rights because it tends to chill employees from creating competing organizations. Finally, the District’s support was unlawful because it was unequal, as the District never offered support to other nonexclusive representatives. While an employer typically need not provide a nonexclusive representative with the same support it has bargained with an exclusive representative, if there are only competing nonexclusive representatives, the employer must treat them equally. (pp. 43-44.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 14 | 06/20/24 |
| I063E |
Clovis Unified School District
701.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DEFENSES; In General
A charging party union need not establish employer intent or actual diminution in its level of support in order to succeed in a charge under EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d). The Board found that there was substantial information to suggest that the school district’s conduct has led to diminished support for the rival nonexclusive representative, thereby further supporting the conclusion that there is reasonable cause to believe the school district violated—and continued to violate—EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) by showing preference for one nonexclusive representative over the other. (p. 29.) more or view all topics or full text. |
46 | 93 | 12/16/21 |
| 2306E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District
701.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DEFENSES; In General
Unfair practice charge alleging that the hiring of the union president by the school district for a management position interfered with the union’s internal activities by weakening the union and causing distrust among union members, and had a chilling effect on employees’ right to engage in protected activities, did not state a prima facie case of unlawful domination; charge did not set forth facts establishing that the school district was liable for the distrust or that its conduct tended to interfere with the internal activities of the union under EERA, section 35543, subdivision (d). more or view all topics or full text. |
37 | 175 | 02/14/13 |
| 1840M |
County of Santa Cruz
701.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DEFENSES; In General
No prima facie case where no facts are provided to indicate any attempt to interfere with internal union politics or sway favor away from exclusive representative. more or view all topics or full text. |
30 | 122 | 05/17/06 |
| 1669M |
Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District
701.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DEFENSES; In General
District’s letter to employees informing them of deficiencies in decertification petition and provision to employees of applicable rules and regulations governing decertification petitions do not constitute unlawful assistance. more or view all topics or full text. |
28 | 213 | 07/28/04 |