Decision 0960E – Manton Joint Union Elementary School District

An election should continue to be stayed only if the employees' dissatisfaction with their representative is in all likelihood attributable to the employer's unfair practices rather than to the exclusive representative's failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents; p. 4. In order to preserve the employees' free choice in the matter of representation, the Board may delay a representation election when there is a substantial risk that its outcome will be affected by conduct that is alleged to be an unfair practice when that charge is still pending before the Board; p. 5. Unfair practice charge alleging that district superintendent's letter to employee group supporting decertification election constituted a blocking charge; p. 6, proposed dec. blocking charge; p. 6, proposed dec.

An election should continue to be stayed only if the employees' dissatisfaction with their representative is in all likelihood attributable to the employer's unfair practices rather than to the exclusive representative's failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents; p. 4. In order to preserve the employees' free choice in the matter of representation, the Board may delay a representation election when there is a substantial risk that its outcome will be affected by conduct that is alleged to be an unfair practice when that charge is still pending before the Board; p. 5. Union failed to establish what benefit would accrue to the employees by requiring them to wait a full year following resolution of the unfair practice charge to vote in the decertification election contrary to Board policy to encourage prompt resolution of unfair practice charge to vote in the decertification election contrary to Board policy to encourage prompt resolution of

In determining whether to set aside an election the question is whether the various unlawful activities establish a probable impact on the employees' vote; whether the employer's conduct would reasonably tend to coerce or interfere with employee choice; p. 13, proposed dec. Union fails to provide any compelling reason to overcome the Board's policy to encourage prompt resolution of bargaining unit representation issues; p. 7. Union failed to establish what benefit would accrue to the employees by requiring them to wait a full year following resolution of the unfair practice charge to vote in the decertification election contrary to Board policy to encourage prompt resolution of representation issues; p. 5, p. 15, proposed dec.

An election should continue to be stayed only if the employees' dissatisfaction with their representative is in all likelihood attributable to the employer's unfair practices rather than to the exclusive representative's failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents; p. 4. In order to preserve the employees' free choice in the matter of representation, the Board may delay a representation election when there is a substantial risk that its outcome will be affected by conduct that is alleged to be an unfair practice when that charge is still pending before the Board; p. 5. Union failed to establish what benefit would accrue to the employees by requiring them to wait a full year following resolution of the unfair practice charge to vote in the decertification election contrary to Board policy to encourage prompt resolution of unfair practice charge to vote in the decertification election contrary to Board policy to encourage prompt resolution of

Where an employer has unlawfully supported one employee organization in preference to another, an interference violation will be found where the employer's acts interfere or tend to interfere with the exercise of protected rights and the employer is unable to justify its actions by proving operational necessity; p. 7, proposed dec. Upon certification of an exclusive representative, the employer is obligated to refrain from negotiating directly with employees in the bargaining unit; p. 9, proposed dec. It is unlawful for an employer to contribute financial or other support to an employee organizaiton or in any way encourage employees to join any organization in preference to another. An employer has an unqualified requirement of strict neutrality; p. 9, proposed dec. In determining whether to set aside an election the question is whether the various unlawful activities establish a probable impact on In determining whether to set aside an election the question is whether the various unlawful activities establish a probable impact on