All notes for Subtopic 801.08000 – Other
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2782M | Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other The California Public Records Act (CPRA; Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.) was enacted “for the explicit purpose of ‘increasing freedom of information.’” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 651, internal citations omitted.) Invoking the CPRA—whether via litigation or via correspondence that could lead to litigation—normally should not constitute interference except where such acts are baseless and taken in bad faith, as set forth in Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731. Union’s CPRA request was not baseless where precedent does not clearly demonstrate whether union sought records that were exempt, in whole or in part, pursuant to CPRA section 6254, subdivision (c) and section 6255, subdivision (a). Furthermore, charging parties failed to object to disclosure after receiving Marken notices, which provided them with notice of the pending CPRA request and the opportunity to file a “reverse-CPRA” lawsuit seeking to restrict disclosure, or to otherwise suggest that any part of the request was overbroad. (Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250.) After charging parties failed to raise any issue, the District proceeded to produce the documents, and as a result, the union’s request was 100 percent successful. 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.) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other Complaint alleged that union interfered with protected rights of three special District employees when it submitted a public records request asking for, among other items, certain e-mails that charging parties sent or received over a 15-week period. Where the sole challenged conduct is a respondent’s public records request, a charging party must meet PERB’s traditional interference standards and show that the request, or any part of it, was both baseless and in bad faith. (Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731.) The Board found undisputed facts showing that union’s request was not baseless, and the Board therefore found no need to reach any other issue. 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.) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other In determining that charging parties did not state a prima facie case of interference, Board noted union officials lacking control over the employment relationship do not have the same capacity as an employer’s agent to discourage protected activity. (Oxnard Federation of Teachers (Collins) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2266, adopting warning letter at p. 6; California Faculty Association (Hale) (1988) PERB Decision No. 693-H, adopting warning letter at p. 5; see also City of Oakland (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, p. 25, fn. 5; (Hartnell Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2452, p. 25.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 35 | 08/31/20 |
| 2274E | Fillmore Unified Teachers Association (Hood) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other Charge failed to establish that union’s refusal to represent him in his grievance constitutes disparate treatment and therefore discrimination because union handled the grievances of employees. A finding of disparate treatment requires a showing that others have been treated differently for similar or identical conduct or in a similar situation. Charge fails to allege any facts showing that the other grievances arose under similar circumstances and contains no facts concerning the nature of the other employees’ grievances. In addition, employee was not similarly situated because he expressly chose to file a grievance himself and to represent himself in mediation. Therefore, the charge fails to establish that union acted discriminatorily in its handling of his grievance. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 28 | 08/12/11 |
| 2145M | West Contra Costa Healthcare District 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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 |
| 2006M | Service Employees International Union, Local 221 (Kroopkin) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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 |
| 1933H | California Faculty Association (Chapman and Druzgalski) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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 |
| 1624E | Antelope Valley College Federation of Teachers (Stryker) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 146 | 04/28/04 |
| 1601S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other Prohibition against unilateral changes within the scope of representation apply to employee organizations. Union committee unfair practice by unilaterally changing its procedures for authorizing union leave. Board found that requiring union to negotiate over these procedures will not abridge union’s fundamental managerial prerogatives. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 87 | 02/24/04 |
| 1554E | Chula Vista Elementary Education Association (Abrams) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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 |
| 1453E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Valadez, et al.) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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 |
| 1479Sa | California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other Union’s failure to establish or follow reasonable disciplinary procedures violates section 3515.5 and interferes with employee’s protected rights under section 3519.5(b). more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 2 | 10/21/02 |
| 1369S | California State Employees Association (Hutchinson) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other The Board has long held that it will not intervene in matters involving the solely internal activities or relationships of an employee organization which do not impact employer-employee relations; p. 3. In this case, the Association conducted elections outside of the timeframe required by internal Association bylaws; mailed election ballots in violation of internal Association bylaws; improperly validated ballots in violation of internal Association bylaws; failed to properly distribute election results in violation of internal Association bylaws; and improperly installed Association officers which are solely internal union activities; pp. 2-3. Charging party did not demonstrate that those internal union activities had any impact on employer-employee relations. Therefore, they failed to meet their burden and the Board concludes that the Dills Act does not protect the internal union activities and participation in which the charging parties were engaged and which form the basis of the dispute in this case. Therefore, the partial dismissal of the unfair practice charge must be affirmed on that basis; pp. 3-4. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31032 | 12/23/99 |
| 1237E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other Union's request for sanctions against charging party is not a finding of discrimination. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29020 | 12/02/97 |
| 1126S | California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other * * * OVERRULED IN PART by California State Employees Association (Hard et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S, p. 28, where the Board held that the Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106 principle applies to claims that a union retaliated against or interfered with protected activity. In such claims, other than those challenging a union’s restriction on membership, a charging party employee must show the union’s conduct impacted the employee’s relationship with their employer. * * *The filing of written charges and a lawsuit against charging parties is cognizable harm. A person suspended from union membership cannot "participate" in the activities of the union and discriminatory interference with such participation constitutes harm; p. 8; p. 28, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27014 | 12/06/95 |
| 1109E | American Federation of Teachers College Guild, Local 1521 (Saxton) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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 |
| 1042S | California State Employees Association (Rubin) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other 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 |
| 0896E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, California Federation of Teachers/American Federation of Teachers, Local 2279 (Deglow) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other No interference violation where employee organization failed to notify all bargaining unit members of an upcoming agency fee election; p. 4, dismissal letter and pp. 3-4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22133 | 08/14/91 |
| 0882E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, American Federation of Teachers/CIO (Barth) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other To establish a union discrimination, it must be shown that the employee participated in protected activity, and that the adverse action was motivated by the employee participation in that protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22093 | 05/24/91 |
| 0811E | Sanger Unified School District 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other Test in Rio Hondo CCD #128 extended to employee organizations. In unfair practice cases communications by the exclusive representative which contains a threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit, designed to cause rejection of the contract at a membership vote constitutes strong evidence of bad faith bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21112 | 06/04/90 |
| 1733E | California School Employees Association and Its Chapter 36 (Peterson) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other PERB has applied the standard for determining employer discrimination to cases alleging discrimination by the employee organization. Peterson’s exclusion from running for union office is not an adverse action. Participation in union elections is an internal union affair and the Board has traditionally refused to interfere in the internal union affairs of an employee organization unless those affairs impact the member’s relationship with his/her employer. Peterson has not demonstrated any impact on the employer-employee relationship by CSEA precluding him from running for office. Contrast the Board’s ruling in California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-S. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 50 | 12/28/04 |
| 0344S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other Employee organization's domination by professional organization is not independent interference with employee rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14245 | 09/12/83 |
| 0341E | Service Employees International Union (Scates) (Pitts) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other Use of service fees for legal services in defending union on charge of breach of duty of fair representation is proper in absence of frivolous or bad faith defense. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14239 | 08/29/83 |
| 0232E | El Centro Elementary Teachers Association (Willis and Mills-Willis) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other Exclusive representative does not interfere with non-members' rights by excluding them from contract ratification vote, as long as the union provides some access to non-members to communicate their views. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13186 | 08/11/82 |
| 0202E | Chaffey Joint Union High School District (Fleck) 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other The right of individuals to file grievances and have them adjusted without intervention of the exclusive representative is not absolute. A contract provision limiting a grievant's choice of representative to one selected by the exclusive representative was not inconsistent with second paragraph of EERA section 3543. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13077 | 03/26/82 |
| 0054E | Hartnell Community College District 801.08000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Other Gaining employers agreement to voluntary recognition prior to scheduled unit determination hearing, after gaining knowledge of competing organization's interest, states prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2117 | 06/05/78 |