Decision 1105E – Pomona Unified School District
LA-CE-3492
Decision Date: May 18, 1995
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: District interfered with union’s rights when it supported another employee organization.
Disposition: Dismissed for failure to state a prima facie case.
Perc Vol: 19
Perc Index: 26098
Decision Headnotes
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts
Government Code section 6254.3 neither part of the EERA nor is it incorporated by reference.
700.01000 – In General
Charge failed to establish prima facie case of unlawful support to another employee organization because it did not allege any facts showing that release of employee home addresses occurred through an agent of the respondent acting within the scope of his or her authority or that the respondent was directly or indirectly involved with the release of information; p. 2, warning letter. There appears to be no legal basis for finding a violation of EERA if a respondent was merely negligent about safeguarding information; p. 3, warning letter.
700.10000 – Special Facilities and Services
Charge failed to establish prima facie case of unlawful support to another employee organization because it did not allege any facts showing that release of employee home addresses occurred through an agent of the respondent acting within the scope of his or her authority or that the respondent was directly or indirectly involved with the release of information; p. 2, warning letter. There appears to be no legal basis for finding a violation of EERA if a respondent was merely negligent about safeguarding information; p. 3, warning letter.
401.04000 – Access – Union Right
Government Code section 6254.3 neither part of the EERA nor is it incorporated by reference.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
Charge failed to establish prima facie case of unlawful support to another employee organization because it did not allege any facts showing that release of employee home addresses occurred through an agent of the respondent acting within the scope of his or her authority or that the respondent was directly or indirectly involved with the release of information; p. 2, warning letter. There appears to be no legal basis for finding a violation of EERA if a respondent was merely negligent about safeguarding information; p. 3, warning letter.