All notes for Subtopic 801.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2782M | Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Where a charging party alleges a respondent has interfered with protected activities via litigation, the charging party faces an extra hurdle that is not present in other interference cases: the charging party must establish that the respondent acted without any reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 9-10.) PERB applies these principles because it finds persuasive a private sector labor law decision, Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731 (Bill Johnson’s), which protects labor rights while also preserving parties’ ability to pursue colorable litigation in good faith. Bill Johnson’s principles are thus akin to litigation privilege principles, though less absolute. (See Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 14.) By following Bill Johnson’s, PERB applies a qualified litigation privilege rather than the nearly absolute privilege set forth in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), preserving parties’ ability to litigate colorable legal rights while disallowing baseless, bad faith conduct that tends to harm protected labor rights. (County of Riverside (2018) PERB Decision No. 2591-M, p. 7, fn. 5; see generally Zerger et al., editors, California Public Sector Labor Relations (2d ed. 2021) § 13.15.) Applying these qualified principles helps to assure that California’s labor laws are not rendered ineffective. (Cf. People v. Persolve, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1274.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 35 | 07/26/21 |
| 2782M | Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General PERB applies its interference test to both employer and union respondents. (San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and 8 American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.) (2020) PERB Decision No. 2744, p. 23 (San Jose/Evergreen).) However, because a union generally lacks control over the employer-employee relationship, it will normally have less capacity to coerce or chill employees from exercising their rights. (Ibid.; see also Hartnell Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2452, p. 25; City of Oakland (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, p. 25, fn. 5; Oxnard Federation of Teachers (Collins) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2266, adopting warning letter at p. 6; California Faculty Association (Hale et al.) (1988) PERB Decision No. 693-H, adopting warning letter at p. 5.) Furthermore, except in cases alleging that a union failed to establish or follow reasonable membership restrictions or disciplinary procedures impacting membership, a charging party must allege facts showing that the union’s conduct impacted the employer-employee relationship. (San Jose/Evergreen, supra, PERB Decision No. 2744, pp. 17-18 & fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 35 | 07/26/21 |
| 2782M | Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General MMBA Section 3502 protects employee rights to form, join, and participate in union activities, or to refrain from doing so, and MMBA Section 3506 prohibits interference with such employee rights. To establish a prima facie interference case, a charging party must show that a respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to union and/or employee rights protected under the statutes we enforce. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 36.) A charging party normally need not establish that the respondent held an unlawful motive. (Ibid.) Once a charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent. (Ibid.) The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (Ibid.) If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, the respondent must show that the interference results from circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. (Ibid.) For conduct that is harmful but not inherently destructive, the respondent may attempt to justify its actions based on operational necessity. (Ibid.) In such cases, we balance the asserted need against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, we find a violation. (Ibid.) Within the category of actions or rules that are not inherently destructive, the stronger the tendency to harm, the greater is the respondent’s burden to show its need was important and that it narrowly tailored its actions or rules to attain that purpose while limiting harm to protected rights as much as possible. (Id. at p. 36, fn. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 35 | 07/26/21 |
| 2744E | San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General In evaluating a discrimination or retaliation claim, PERB generally applies the same test irrespective of whether the respondent is an employer or a union. In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a charging party must allege facts showing that: (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 15.) If the charging party establishes these factors, certain fact patterns nonetheless allow a respondent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the same action even absent the protected activity. (Id. at pp. 15-16.) Additionally, in an unfair practice charge alleging that a union discriminated or retaliated against protected activity, the charging party must allege facts showing that the union’s conduct impacted the employer-employee relationship. (California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S, pp. 27-28; California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1479-S, pp. 13-17, citing Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 35 | 08/31/20 |
| 2386S | California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (Armantrout) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General To state a prima facie case of interference, a charging party must establish that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under the Dills Act. The test for whether a respondent has interfered with the protected rights of employees under the Dills Act does not require that unlawful motive or intent be established, but only that at least slight harm to employee rights results from the conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 18 | 06/30/14 |
| 2249M | National Union of Healthcare Workers 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Alleged campaign misrepresentations which would reasonably tend to interfere with or restrain voters and do not merely involve representations which voters would assess reasonably as mere electioneering puffery are to be assessed under a totality of the circumstances test to determine if the alleged conduct tends to, or does, interfere with employees’ right freely to choose a representative. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 155 | 04/18/12 |
| 2199M | Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific (O'Keefe) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Charge failed to establish prima facie case of discrimination/retaliation. Board will not intervene in disputes that involve only the internal union activities of an employee organization unless those activities substantially impact employer-employee relations. Under a retaliation analysis, charge adequately alleged the first two elements that charging party participated in protected activities of filing PERB charges and assisting in prosecution of a co-worker’s PERB charge and that the employee organization had knowledge of those activities. Charge failed to allege facts to establish that either the employee organization’s decision not to pursue charging party’s grievance or its issuance of a letter of reprimand to charging party had an adverse impact on employment for purposes of establishing the adverse action element of a retaliation case. Charge also failed to set forth any facts establishing unlawful motive or nexus. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 39 | 08/29/11 |
| 2274E | Fillmore Unified Teachers Association (Hood) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General PERB does not have jurisdiction over allegation that union allowed members at one site, but not charging party’s site, to vote in contract ratification election on specified date, absent a showing that this conduct had a substantial impact on charging party’s relationship to his employer. Allegation that, as a result of this vote and subsequent contract, charging party was given two classes he had not previously taught, was not afforded a request for transfer, and that the ratified contract resulted in the employer being able to save itself money does not establish the required impact, because the dispute concerns internal union operations and communications with union members, not the ultimate outcome of negotiations between the union and the employer. Right provided by the employee organization itself, for example, the right to vote on contract ratification, is not provided by EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 18 | 06/22/12 |
| 2194E | American Federation of Teachers Part-Time Faculty United, Local 6286 (Peavy) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General In analyzing allegations of discrimination that also violate the duty of fair representation, the Board follows the principles applicable for violations of parallel provisions prohibiting employer interference and reprisals. In order to prevail on a discrimination theory, the charging party must establish: (1) the employee exercised rights guaranteed by EERA; (2) the employee organization had knowledge of the employee’s exercise of those rights; (3) the employee organization took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employee organization took the action because of the exercise of those rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 28 | 08/12/11 |
| 2157E | Rio Teachers Association (Lucas) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General A violation of EERA section 3546.5 occurs when a union fails to make available to its members the financial report for the immediately preceding fiscal year. To be timely, a charge alleging a violation of section 3546.5 must be filed within six months of when the charging party knew or should have known that the employee organization failed or refused to provide the requested financial report for the immediately preceding fiscal year. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 27 | 01/21/11 |
| 2145M | West Contra Costa Healthcare District 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General In ascertaining whether a misrepresentation by a party during an election campaign interferes with employee rights, PERB looks to whether the statement was made in a fraudulent manner that would prevent an employee from evaluating the truth of the statement. Union flyer instructing employees to give their mail ballots to a “trusted shop steward” did not interfere with employee rights because employees had ample means to learn the proper method for returning the ballot well before the ballot return date: the union immediately issued a corrected flyer, mailed a newsletter containing a correction to each bargaining unit member’s home, and ballot instructions were posted at the employer’s premises and included by PERB with the ballot itself. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 5 | 11/30/10 |
| 2117H | California Faculty Association (Halcoussis) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Unfair practice charge against union for failure to allow non-members to cast a vote to determine support for a proposed two-day-a-month furlough program was dismissed. A union may exclude non-members from voting as long as the union provides the employees some opportunity to communicate their views. PERB will not interfere with matters of internal union affairs where there was no showing of a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship so as to give rise to the duty of fair representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 100 | 06/14/10 |
| 2116H | California Faculty Association (Williams) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Unfair practice charge against union for failure to allow non-members to cast a vote to determine support for a proposed two-day-a-month furlough program was dismissed. A union may exclude non-members from voting as long as the union provides the employees some opportunity to communicate their views. PERB will not interfere with matters of internal union affairs where there was no showing of a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship so as to give rise to the duty of fair representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 101 | 06/14/10 |
| 2069H | State Employees Trades Council United (Ventura, et al.) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Charging parties failed to establish that union was aware of their decision not to comply with union’s request that they participate in a demonstration in support of another union. To prove the knowledge element of the prima facie retaliation case, charging parties must establish "actual knowledge," meaning that the relevant individual or entity actually knew of the fact in question or was otherwise "clearly informed" of that fact. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 168 | 10/05/09 |
| 2034S | Civil Service Division, California State Employees Association (Eisenberg) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Actions of the president of employee group in maintaining a website critical of incumbent union and collecting signatures on decertification petition that was not filed with PERB did not unlawfully interfere with charging party’s ability to pursue his own decertification petition or to create a new employee organization to represent the bargaining unit. Charging party failed to demonstrate how president’s actions resulted in “some harm” to charging party’s decertification efforts, where charging party failed to establish that he was unable to obtain the necessary signatures to file his decertification petition, or that any bargaining unit member forewent signing charging party’s petition because of the president’s actions. Even if the president’s activities interfered with charging party’s activities, the charging party failed to establish that this activity was not itself protected activity. A respondent’s speech causes no cognizable harm to employee rights unless it contains a “threat of reprisal or promise of benefit.” Under this standard, even if actions of the president of employee group in maintaining a website critical of incumbent union affected charging party’s ability to pursue his own decertification efforts, charging party has not demonstrated that maintenance of website constitutes a “threat or reprisal or promise benefit.” more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 100 | 06/04/09 |
| 2006M | Service Employees International Union, Local 221 (Kroopkin) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General PERB will only intervene in the internal affairs of a union when the union’s conduct substantially impacts an employee’s relationship with his or her employer. Employee organization’s circulation to the entire bargaining unit of a letter from the employer canceling labor/management meetings because of conduct by an employee/union steward and employee organization’s decision that same employee would no longer represent it at labor/management meetings did not have a substantial impact on the employee’s relationship with the employer. Accordingly, the employee organization’s conduct was not subject to review by PERB. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 48 | 02/27/09 |
| 1991E | Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Arteaga) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Charge failed to allege prima facie case of retaliation because it did not establish that union knew charging party engaged in protected activity of attempting to decertify the union. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 19 | 12/09/08 |
| 1933H | California Faculty Association (Chapman and Druzgalski) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General To state a prima facie case of interference under HEERA, a charging party must establish that the respondent's conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under HEERA. A violation may only be found if HEERA provides the claimed rights. HEERA section 3565 grants employees the right to participate in the activities of their employee organization or to refuse to join the employee organization or participate in its activities. HEERA section 3562(f)(2) expressly excludes the Academic Senate from the definition of employee organization. Thus, rights involving faculty participation in the Academic Senate are not covered by HEERA. Charging Parties have not demonstrated that the Association interfered with their protected rights under HEERA when the Association informed the Academic Senate that it continued to negotiate with the University over implementation of SB 1212. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 15 | 12/21/07 |
| 1918S | Union of American Physicians and Dentists (Menaster) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General The charge does not provide facts indicating that an employee’s Union had an obligation to help him get reinstated. As such, the charge does not demonstrate that the Union's inaction can be considered an adverse action, nor does the charge provide facts indicating that its failure to respond to the Department's decision to not reinstate him was retaliatory in nature. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 135 | 08/09/07 |
| 1858E | California School Employees Association and Its Chapter 198 (Bruce) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Assertion of a prima facie violation of section 3543.6(b) must allege conduct of an employee organization that tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 3 | 09/07/06 |
| 1855H | Coalition of University Employees (Higgins) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General The Board has intervened in the internal affairs of a union when alleged retaliation against the members for their union participation went beyond solely internal union activities or relations and impacted the employment relationship. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 157 | 08/29/06 |
| 1814S | CDF Firefighters (Pittman) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General A charging party must specifically describe why an internal union procedure or its application is unreasonable. In this case, the charging party failed to do so. In discrimination charges filed against employee organizations based on internal union activity, the charge must demonstrate that the internal union conduct had an impact on employer-employee relations. In addition, the adverse action taken by the employee organization must have some impact on employer-employee relations. In this case, there was no impact on the employer-employee relations. The test under Dills Act section 3515.5 only applies to an employee who has been suspended or expelled from union membership. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 58 | 02/07/06 |
| 1815S | CDF Firefighters (Pittman) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General A party must specifically describe why a procedure or its application is unreasonable. In this case, the charging party failed to do so. In discrimination charges filed against employee organizations based on internal union activity, the charge must demonstrate that the internal union conduct had an impact on employer-employee relations. In addition, the adverse action taken by the employee organization must have some impact on employer-employee relations. In this case, there was no impact on the employer-employee relations. The test under Dills Act section 3515.5 only applies to an employee who has been suspended or expelled from union membership. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 59 | 02/07/06 |
| 1624E | Antelope Valley College Federation of Teachers (Stryker) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Similar to the situation in California State Employees Association (Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S, the Federation’s removal of Stryker from the negotiating team differs from suspension or dismissal from membership governed by EERA section 3543.1(a). Therefore, the Federation did not interfere with protected rights under EERA. The Federation did not discriminate against Stryker under EERA since removal from the negotiating team is an internal union matter and Stryker provided no facts showing a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 146 | 04/28/04 |
| 1683E | California School Employees Association and its Chapter 36 (Peterson) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General PERB has long held that the standard applied in cases involving employer discrimination is appropriate in cases alleging discrimination by an employee organization. Charging party alleged that union removed him from union position because he also held an office in the Classified Senate. Board found that since Classified Senate is not an “employee organization” under EERA, holding office in such an organization is not protected activity. PERB has been reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of an employee organization unless those affairs impact the member’s relationship with his employer. Charging party’s allegation that he was removed from union office fails to establish unlawful interference since his relationship with his employer was not impacted. Union’s refusal to allow employee to run for the negotiating committee was not adverse act because it didn’t impact his relationship with employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 242 | 08/27/04 |
| 1554E | Chula Vista Elementary Education Association (Abrams) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General The public announcement of the union by it’s grievance chair that employee had filed a charge against the union with PERB does not interfere with the employee’s rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 9 | 10/22/03 |
| 1551S | California State Employeees Association (Barker and Osuna) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General The Board found that Barker and Osuna did not state a prima facie case for discrimination because there was no showing of a nexus between their participation on the BUNCs and their refusal to participate in the master negotiations table with CSEA’s removal of Barker and Osuna as BUNC chairpersons. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 4 | 10/17/03 |
| 1453E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Valadez, et al.) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Prima facie violation of illegal discrimination in retaliation for protected conduct rebutted where union established its activities would have been the same in the absence of protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32097 | 06/29/01 |
| 1350E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General In analyzing allegations of discrimination violating the duty of fair representation, the Board follows the principles applicable for violations of EERA section 3543.5(a), a parallel provision prohibiting employer interference and reprisals. (Service Employees International Union, Local 99(Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106, at p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30170 | 09/29/99 |
| 1304S | California State Employees Association (Hutchinson/Laosantos) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General The Board has intervened in the internal affairs of a union when alleged retaliation against the members for their union participation went beyond solely internal union activities or relations and impacted the employment relationship; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30028 | 12/11/98 |
| 1288S | California Association of Professional Scientists (Opong-Mensah) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General To demonstrate that an exclusive representative discriminated against a charging party in violation of Dills Act section 3519.5(b), the charging party must show that: (1) the unit member exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the exclusive representative had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the exclusive representative imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the unit member because of the exercise of those rights, citing Novato; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29170 | 10/01/98 |
| 1275E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General In order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent's conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under EERA. On its face, the statutory right of self-representation falls short of the right to resort to the arbitation process. Under the statute and Board precedent, this contractual limitation does not violate charging party's section 3543 rights, and this allegation must be dismissed. Federation's agreement to contract language which denies employees the right to have a representative of the employee's choice in grievance meetings fails to state a prima facie violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29125 | 07/20/98 |
| 1233E | Associated Administrators of Los Angeles (Daniels) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Union's reporting to police of employee's threat to kill her supervisor and subsequent concealment of report does not constitute a violation of DFR. Nor does the Union's handling of the employee's grievance appear to be without a rational basis. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29014 | 11/20/97 |
| 1237E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Where charge does not contain factual allegations showing nexus between charging party's protected activity and exclusive representative's conduct, charge fails to state a prima facie case for discrimination/reprisal; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29020 | 12/02/97 |
| 1238E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Where charge does not contain factual allegations showing nexus between charging party's protected activity and exclusive representative's conduct, charge fails to state a prima facie case for discrimination/reprisal; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29021 | 12/02/97 |
| 1199S | California State Employees Association (Carrillo) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General No discrimination where charging party fails to allege facts establishing connection between protected activity and adverse action taken by union; p. 9, dismissal letter. The Board's analysis of discrimination and duty of fair representation under Dills is the same as under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28099 | 05/14/97 |
| 1193E | Berkeley Federation of Teachers (Lavan) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Charge must allege facts establishing how employee organization's handling of situation is contrary to its duty; p. 2 [citations] warning letter. Duty of fair representation is limited to contractually based remedies under respondent's exclusive control (California Union of Safety Engineers (John) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1064-S; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28088 | 04/29/97 |
| 1162E | California School Employees Association (Davison) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General No violation where charge fails to state, with particularity, facts which indicate how or in what manner the exclusive representative's actions lack a rational basis or are devoid of honest judgment; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27119 | 06/26/96 |
| 1142E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Lowman) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Speech activity by the union is accorded generous protection so long as it is related to matters of legitimate concern; the expression of views or opinion does not evidence an unfair practice unless there is a threat of reprisal or promise of benefit; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27058 | 02/29/96 |
| 1134H | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Perry) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Charge must allege facts establishing that employee organization's handling of employee's grievance was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith or it will be dismissed; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27032 | 01/25/96 |
| 1137E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Interference is measured by an objective standard not subjective. The stress-related ailments of an employee are irrelevant to whether the standard is met. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27042 | 02/01/96 |
| 1109E | American Federation of Teachers College Guild, Local 1521 (Saxton) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General No obligation on union to provide employee with a representative of her choice as selection is an internal union matter not subject to DFR. Nor is failure to provide a certain representative an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26103 | 05/31/95 |
| 1062H | University Council-American Federation of Teachers (Chan) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Charge failed to allege facts establishing that employee organization's handling of employee's grievance was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25148 | 10/13/94 |
| 1064S | California Union of Safety Employees (John) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General The test for resolving allegations of discrimination set out in Novato applies to charges filed under the Dills Act; p. 11. The standard applied to cases involving employer misconduct is appropriate in cases involving employee organization discrimination; pp. 11-12. In order to establish unlawful discrimination under Novato, the charging party bears the burden of showing he engaged in protected activity; the respondent knew of his participation in protected activity; and the respondent took adverse action motivated by that activity; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26004 | 11/01/94 |
| 1042S | California State Employees Association (Rubin) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Dills Act does not guarantee an employee organization member the right to conduct a dissident meeting in facilities provided by the employee organization; p. 1, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25056 | 03/24/94 |
| 1043S | California State Employees Association (Janowicz) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Charge must allege facts establishing that employee organization: (1) failed to notify employee of its decision not to pursue the grievance to arbitration; (2) failed to give reasons for the decision; and (3) failed to provide an opportunity to appeal the decision; p. 10, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25057 | 03/25/94 |
| 1032S | California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General The prohibition against an employee organization's discrimination or retaliation against employees because of their protected activity is not limited to those functions of the exclusive representative which carry with them the duty of fair representation; p. 16. Allegations of union discrimination and/or retaliation are reviewed under the Novato test. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25029 | 01/06/94 |
| 1014S | California State Employees Association (Garcia) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Notwithstanding a party's failure to allege facts sufficient to show a substantial impact on the employment relationship and thus a duty of fair representation, if the factual allegations would support a finding of retaliation, discrimination, or interference by an employee organization, the Board has statutory authority to inquire into the internal activities of the employee organization; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24153 | 09/21/93 |
| 0969S | California State Employees Association (Mitchell) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Although the charge contains allegations of engaging in protected activity and knowledge of such activity by the union, the charge fails to demonstrate that the union's actions were motivated by the exercise of protected rights; p. 6, warning letter; p. 6, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24038 | 02/04/93 |
| 0902E | San Diego Teachers Association (Hernandez) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General EERA section 3543 does not guarantee employees the right to vote in general elections free from the influence of financial self-interest; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22152 | 09/19/91 |
| 0897E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, California Federation of Teachers/American Federation of Teachers/Local 2279 (Deglow, et al.) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Unfair practice charge dismissed where there were no allegations that charging parties engaged in protected activity, that the exclusive representative had knowledge of this activity, and that the exclusive representative's refusal to refund agency fees was motivated by the protected activity; p. 4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22137 | 08/29/91 |
| 0870E | United Teachers Los Angeles (Malin) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Board will not intervene in the internal affairs of a union's election procedures except where there is alleged or apparent impact on the employment relationship so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation, or membership has been unreasonably restricted or the union has imposed reprisals on employees because of their exercise of protected activity; p. 10, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22053 | 03/01/91 |
| 1208E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Bernath) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Two year old newsletter referring to charging party's earlier protected activity is insufficient to establish that union's failure to pursue grievance to second level was discriminatory; pp. 3-4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28121 | 06/23/97 |
| 0344S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Analysis of employee organization's alleged interference is same as employer's analysis; p. 12. Test for employee organization's alleged interference under SEERA is same as under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14245 | 09/12/83 |
| 0258E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Collins) 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Assertion of a prima facie violation of section 3543.6(b) must allege conduct of an employee organization that tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights under EERA; some connection must be shown between the employee organization's conduct and the employee's rights under EERA; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14004 | 11/17/82 |
| 0045E | El Rancho Unified School District 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Employer has standing to file an unfair practice charge which seeks to vindicate and protect the rights of its employees. The employer has an interest in maintaining a peaceful atmosphere not disrupted by threats or intimidation of employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2024 | 12/30/77 |
| 0012E | San Juan Unified School District 801.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; In General Not unfair practice for an employer to provide proof of support to an employee organization other than the petitioner. Attempt by rival employee organization to obtain withdrawal of signatures is not per se violation of the Act. more or view all topics or full text. | 1 | 77 | 03/10/77 |