Decision 1411S – California State Employees Association (Hard and Hackett)

SA-CO-201-S

Decision Date: October 10, 2000

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 25
Perc Index: 32006

Decision Headnotes

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
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.

202.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS
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.

202.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS
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.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
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.

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
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.