Decision 1411S – California State Employees Association (Hard and Hackett)
SA-CO-201-S
Decision Date: October 10, 2000
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board dismissed the unfair practice charge, which alleged that the employee organization had unlawfully retaliated against charging parties by sustaining an internal union complaint filed against them.
Disposition: Dismissed. The Board will not review charge allegations based on a union’s filing an internal union complaint against charging parties when the charge concerns a purely internal union matter.
Perc Vol: 25
Perc Index: 32006
Decision Headnotes
201.01000 – In General
Under the Dills Act, PERB itself was not intended by the legislature to be encompassed within the term "employer." Nor is PERB encompassed within the term "state." The "state," for purposes of application of the Dills Act, pertains to the state as an employer. It does not pertain to all agencies of the state which may jurisdictionally interface with either the state as an employer or with state employee organizations; pp. 16-18.
202.01000 – In General; Statutory Definition
CSEA's claim that the Board has previously found the Caucus for a Democratic Union (CDU) to be an employee organization within the meaning of the Dills Act is unsupported by case law. The cases support a finding that CDU constitutes a political faction within CSEA, and not a separate employee organization. Findings by DPA are not inconsistent with the Board's conclusion; pp. 18-21.
202.07000 – Challenge to Status as Employee Organization
CSEA's claim that the Board has previously found the Caucus for a Democratic Union (CDU) to be an employee organization within the meaning of the Dills Act is unsupported by case law. The cases support a finding that CDU constitutes a political faction within CSEA, and not a separate employee organization. Findings by DPA are not inconsistent with the Board's conclusion; pp. 18-21.
300.07000 – Minority Demands; Dissident Group; Intraunion Disputes
The underlying CSEA grievance, upon which the unfair practice charge was based, was a purely internal union matter. The Board will not reach the merits of that charge. The proposed decision, insofar as it finds retaliation on the part of CSEA, is reversed; pp. 21-23.
1105.15000 – Privileged Communications
CSEA cited no applicable case law, nor any statutory provisions, that would justify the sealing of the so-called "Spy Memos" on the basis of confidentiality. The mere assertion of confidentiality is insufficient to compel the relief requested by CSEA in an unfair practice proceeding; pp. 13-15. The "Spy Memos" did not constitute a trade secret under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The documents contain no "formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method or process." Furthermore, no evidence was presented that these documents have any economic value. Finally the memos appear to have been widely distributed prior to their introduction into evidence here; pp. 15-16.