Decision 1038H – Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

Threat made to officer not sufficient to overturn election as the threat was made anonymously and could not be identified with the Association. Further, the officer appeared not to have been coerced into voting; p. 6; pp. 19-20, proposed dec.

The Board reaffirmed its prior decision that the University failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the appearance of a Board agent was essential to resolution of its case as required by Regulation 32150; p. 4.

The Board will afford deference to the ALJ's findings of fact which incorporate credibility determinations; p. 6.

Employee failed to establish that she actually requested a mail ballot in accordance with the consent election agreement. Employee testified that she would not have voted anyway; p. 6; p. 16, proposed dec.

PERB Regulation 32738 sets out two grounds for objections to the conduct of an election: 1) The conduct complained of interfered with the employees' right to freely choose a representative, or 2) serious irregularity in the conduct of the election; p. 10, proposed dec. For election objections to be sustained, some effect on the election result either must be shown or logically inferred; p. 11, proposed dec. Even the demonstration of unlawful conduct in the election environment is but "a threshold question." (State of California (Department of Personnel Administration, et al.) (1986) PERB Decision No. 601-S.); p. 11, proposed dec. The basic question is whether the various unlawful activities establish a "probable impact on the employees' vote." (Jefferson Elementary School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 164.) In deciding whether to set aside the election employees' vote." (Jefferson Elementary School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 164.) In deciding whether to set aside the election effect of the conduct which forms the basis for the relief requested." (Clovis Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 389.); p. 11, proposed dec.

Employee failed to establish that she actually requested a mail ballot in accordance with the consent election agreement. Employee testified that she would not have voted anyway; p. 6; p. 16, proposed dec.

Comments made by Association's representative were chance, isolated, innocuous comments that would not have the natural an probable effect of discouraging employee free choice; p. 5; pp. 13-14, proposed dec. Threat made to officer not sufficient to overturn election as the threat was made anonymously and could not be identified with the Association. Further, the officer appeared not to have been coerced into voting; p. 6; pp. 19-20, proposed dec.

PERB Regulation section 32738 sets out two grounds for objections to the conduct of an election: 1) The conduct complained of interfered with the employees' right to freely choose a representative, or 2) serious irregularity in the conduct of the election; p. 10, proposed dec. The Board reaffirmed its prior decision that the University failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the appearance of a Board agent was essential to the resolution of its case as required by Regulation 32150; p. 4.