Decision 0188E – John Swett Unified School District
SF-CE-53
Decision Date: December 21, 1981
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 6
Perc Index: 13018
Decision Headnotes
1102.01000 – Pre-Arbitration
Where upc contains matter which is partly covered by contract (discrimination against employee because of exercise of EERA rights) and partly not covered (deprivation to union of its EERA rights), PERB will not order bifurcation and require duplicative and overlapping proceedings through both the arbitration and unfair practice routes. No deferral ordered; pp. 4-5.
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts
Where unfair practice charge contains matter which is partly covered by contract (discrimination against employee because of exercise of EERA rights) and partly not covered (deprivation to union of its EERA rights), PERB will not order bifurcation and require duplicative and overlapping proceedings through both the arbitration and unfair practice routes. No deferral ordered; pp. 4-5. (Case called into question by Lake Elsinore, No. 646.)
300.11000 – Distribution of Literature
District agent's chastisement of employee who conducted a poll among employees which caused dissension among faculty improper interference with right of employee to engage in protected activity. Certain statements of District agent went beyond bounds of operational necessity and had a coercive meaning viewed in overall context rather than being a legitimate problem-solving conversation; pp. 6-7.
404.02000 – Statements
District agent's chastisement of employee who conducted a poll among employees which caused dissension among faculty improper interference with right of employee to engage in protected activity. Certain statements of District agent went beyond bounds of operational necessity and had a coercive meaning viewed in overall context rather than being a legitimate problem-solving conversation; pp. 6-7.
409.04000 – Union or Employee Misconduct
District agent's chastisement of employee who conducted a poll among employee which caused dissension among faculty improper interference with right of employee to engage in protected activity. Certain statements of District agent went beyond bounds of operational necessity and had a coercive meaning viewed in overall context rather than being a legitimate problem-solving conversation; pp. 6-7. District's speech related conduct loses its protection when it carries a coercive meaning as to employee exercise of EERA rights; p. 8.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
PERB will not consider exceptions to proposed decision filed on behalf of a non-party. Regulation 32300 only permits a party to file exceptions to proposed hearing officer decision; pp. 8-9.