Decision 0089E – Carlsbad Unified School District

Interference with employee rights does not of necessity constitute a denial of organization rights; here, no evidence that district's actions denied the union any rights guaranteed to it; p. 15.

Interference with employee rights ongoing, so union could wait until employees actually transferred to file charge rather than acting when transfer notice received; pp. 14-15.

No violation found in transfer of one employee where only nexus was that employee was a union member and there was no evidence of unlawful intent; pp. 13-14. The evidence as a whole, including the employees' extensive protected activity, the timing of the adverse actions and the employer's failure to provide a legitimate business justification for its actions, establishes the transfers were unlawfully motivated; pp. 11-13 and pp. 17-20, proposed dec.

Transfer of union activist to deter organizing would have natural and probable consequence of also causing other employees to reasonably fear similar action if they engaged in organizing; p. 13.

Proof of unlawful intent is not required in all cases arising under sec. 3543.5(a) and to the extent that San Dieguito No. 22 held otherwise, it is overruled; "because of" language in sec. 3543.5(a) means only that some nexus must exist between the exercise of employee rights and the actions of the employer; pp. 5-9. Unlawful intent remains significant where it is affirmatively proven or where the employer claims justification for its conduct; pp. 9-10. Single test appropriate for evaluating all claims under 3543.5(a) (test set out on pp. 10-11) (but see Novato No. 210)).

Board will take cognizance of NLRB precedent where appropriate, as an aid in interpreting indentical or analogous provisions of the statutes p. 6. PERB will remain open to possibility of inherent and necessary distinctions to be drawn for public employment relations in California; persuasiveness of federal adjudication is mitigated, if not defeated, by specific distinctions between the language of the respective statutes.

Interference with employee rights does not of necessity constitute a denial of organization rights; here, no evidence that district's actions denied the union any rights guaranteed to it; p. 15.