Decision 0389E – Clovis Unified School District

Fact that warning about union activities was brief and delivered to only one employee does not eliminate its coercive nature. Finding that statements reasonably tended to coerce employee does not require evidence that employee actually felt threatened or intimidated or was in fact discouraged from participating in Association activities; p. 14.

By meeting and conferring with Faculty Senate, by providing Faculty Senate with financial assistance and support and by making express statements favoring the Senate, District created impression that it favored Senate Association, thereby unlawfully encouraging employees to support that organization. Fact that Faculty Senate was not listed on ballot is inconsequential; pp. 4-5.

Strict neutrality requires employer contemplating change in fundamental matters to provide notice and opportunity to meet and confer to all employee organizations which represent employees affected by the change or alternatively to refrain from making any change until the QCR is resolved. Here, violation of strict neutrality where District met exclusively with one organization while failing to offer to meet with competitor; pp. 7-8.

Given pending election, District duty-bound to discontinue services and financial assistance to Senate or offer the same to competing organization. Association's failure to request like support is no defense; pp. 9-10.

Statements expressing favoritism at mandatory meeting 10 days before election and preparation and mailing of flyer to teachers containing letter from superintendent and from Faculty Senate in which Senate claims responsibility for certain benefits, especially when made so close to election, violated strict neutrality and exceeded employer's free speech right; p. 10.

Board must look to circumstances surrounding the conversation to determine if questioning was threatening or coercive. Specific words used are not determinative where inquiry conveys employer's disapproval toward union and creates expectation of employee response. Here, Board found no coercion; pp. 15-16.

Decision to set aside an election depends on totality of circumstances and cumulative effect of the conduct which forms the basis for the relief requested. Do not necessarily need to find unfair practice. Do not need to show actual impact on vote. Here, totality of circumstances justifies setting aside of election; pp. 17-18.

Elimination of Saturday workday constituted a benefit inconsistent with past practice and violated strict neutrality. Implementation of 2% pay increase in accordance with previous plan was allowable, especially since decision and timing were justified by factors other than pendency of election; pp. 10-11.