Decision 0214E – Sacramento City Unified School District

The test for 3543.5(d) [employer domination or interference with formation or administration of organization] violation is whether the employer's conduct tends to influence employees' choice of representation or provide stimulus in one direction or the other; p. 3.

Section 3543.5(d) violation found where: District suggested to employees that they form a "Supervisory Council" when it was aware of representation effort by another union on behalf of supervisory employees; District met on regular basis with the Council, during working hours, on District facilities; the Council in effect negotiated with the District over matters within scope of representation; other union was excluded from the negotiation process; during election campaign, superintendent announced if the other union won, "discussions" (negotiations over items discussed with Council) would have to start all over again. Fact that Council was not a petitioner in the election does not affect finding of violation; pp. 4-5.

PERB will find a 3543.5(a) violation when employer's acts tend to result in some harm to employee rights and the employer is unable to justify its actions by proving operational necessity. Negotiation sessions between District and an organization of supervisors, created at District's suggestion, during election campaign of another union seeking to represent supervisors did, in fact, tend to harm protected rights under the Act; p. 7. Operational necessity argument - that District was compelled to meet with supervisors pursuant to EERA section 3543.1(a) - rejected. District met with supervisors exclusively during question concerning representation. Strict neutrality by Employer, required under circumstances, not shown; p. 9.

In a pure interference case, it is not necessary for charging party to raise the inference that District was motivated by protected conduct; p. 7.

Section 3543.5(a) violation found where superintendent made statement which reasonably could be understood to mean that if employees voted for representation, all progress in negotiations with employer inspired union would be lost; p. 8.

Request for oral argument denied where matter was thoroughly litigated by both parties and there were enough facts in record to allow Board to reach its decision. Oral argument unnecessary, costly, and would delay resolution of dispute; pp. 10-11.

Election ballots impounded by PERB ordered destroyed and new election ordered where District found in violation of duty of neutrality and interfered with election campaign; p. 11.