Decision 1479S – California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.)
SA-CO-225-S
Decision Date: May 2, 2002
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board reversed the proposed decision of the ALJ. The Board held that it had jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of CSEA’s summary suspension procedures and that its summary suspension of the charging party interfered with his protected rights in violation of the Dills Act. The Board further held that charging party did not demonstrate the effect of his protected activities on the employer-employee relationship to show retaliation under section 3519.5(b) and so dismissed that charge against CSEA.
Disposition: This decision confirms the Board’s authority to determine the reasonableness of an employee organization’s rules regarding membership requirements and the dismissal of members under section 3515.5. It distinguishes California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993) PERB Decision No. 979-S in that there was no immediate threat or emergency to warrant CSEA’s invocation of its summary suspension procedures. The Board also held that the charging party did not show the impact of its activities on the employer-employee relationship to support a finding of protected activity.
Perc Vol: 26
Perc Index: 33065
Decision Headnotes
300.07000 – Minority Demands; Dissident Group; Intraunion Disputes
Charging Party did not provide an adequate showing that participation in rallies, distributing literature, wearing union buttons or t-shirts impacted the employer-employee relationship sufficiently to support a finding of protected activity.
801.03000 – Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership
CSEA’s suspension of member during nominating period violated section 3515.5. Reasonableness of membership provisions are measured on the provision and/or its application. Charging Party did not provide an adequate showing that participation in rallies, distributing literature, wearing union buttons or t-shirts impacted the employer-employee relationship sufficiently to support a finding of protected activity. This case is distinguishable from the ruling in Cupertino Union Elementary School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 572. In Cupertino, PERB held that an employer’s action was motivated by protected acts of the group, then the action is unlawful as to the entire group. PERB did not hold that the unrelated protected acts of some members of a group would automatically be attributed to all members of the group, as was the case in this matter. PERB has jurisdiction, under section 3515.5 to determine the reasonableness of a union’s rules regarding who may join and the dismissal or suspension of members. Unlike PERB’s decision in California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993) PERB Decision No. 979-S, there was no immediate threat or emergency to warrant CSEA’s invocation of its summary suspension procedure. Although Section 3515.5 specifically refers to dismissal of individuals from membership, PERB has jurisdiction over suspensions as well, fn. 18.
806.02000 – Internal Union Procedures
Although PERB will not interfere in internal union matters, there are other matters over which the Legislature has given it the power to act, such as reasonable restrictions over who may join unions and reasonable provisions for the dismissal of members from membership. Charging Party did not provide an adequate showing that participation in rallies, distributing literature, wearing union buttons or t-shirts impacted the employer-employee relationship sufficiently to support a finding of protected activity.
1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
Board may review issues not excepted to, to avoid a serious mistake of law; p. 13. Evidence of CSEA’s animosity toward CDU is contained in its motion to dismiss; p. 21.
1406.00000 – In General
Reduction of penalty to only a suspension that was already served does not render the case moot. The essential nature of the complaint has not been lost. The ruling clarifies a previous Board case; fn. 26.
300.01000 – In General
Charging Party did not provide an adequate showing that participation in rallies, distributing literature, wearing union buttons or t-shirts impacted the employer-employee relationship sufficiently to support a finding of protected activity.
300.11000 – Distribution of Literature
Charging Party did not provide an adequate showing that participation in rallies, distributing literature, wearing union buttons or t-shirts impacted the employer-employee relationship sufficiently to support a finding of protected activity.
801.04000 – Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc.
PERB has jurisdiction, under section 3515.5 to determine the reasonableness of a union’s rules regarding who may join and the dismissal or suspension of members. Unlike PERB’s decision in California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993) PERB Decision No. 979-S, there was no immediate threat or emergency to warrant CSEA’s invocation of its summary suspension procedure.
1105.01000 – In General
Evidence of CSEA’s animosity toward CDU is contained in its motion to dismiss; p. 21.
1107.18000 – Review of Findings Not Excepted To
Board may review issues not excepted to, to avoid a serious mistake of law; p. 13. Evidence of CSEA’s animosity toward CDU is contained in its motion to dismiss; p. 21.