Decision 1647E – Chula Vista Elementary School District

LA-CE-4125-E

Decision Date: June 23, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 184

Decision Headnotes

402.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES
402.04000 – Union Views; Voting; Questionnaires; Polling of Employees

The principal of MCS interfered with the rights of teachers under his supervision to vote in a fair election, free from intimidation, in an election that effectively involved the decertification that long represented those employees

405.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES
405.02000 – Express or Implied Threats

The principal of MCS interfered with the rights of teachers under his supervision to vote in a fair election, free from intimidation, in an election that effectively involved the decertification that long represented those employees.

1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.11000 – Setting Aside of Election

In determining whether to set aside an election, the Board looks at whether the employer’s unfair practices establish a “probable impact on the employees’ vote.” The question becomes whether the employer’s conduct would reasonably tend to coerce or interfere with employee choice. Actual impact need not be shown. In deciding whether to set aside an election result the Board will assess the totality of circumstances. Given the closeness of the election, threats quite extraordinary in their gravity, District awareness of the conduct and unwillingness to address it. The principal’s conduct tended to coerce or interfere with employee choice. (The ALJ declined to overturn the election because the charter school was not named as a party to the charge. The Board’s dissenting majority affirmed this ruling.

1304.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; OBJECTION TO ELECTIONS
1304.03000 – Employer Conduct

In determining whether to set aside an election, the Board looks at whether the employer’s unfair practices establish a “probable impact on the employees’ vote.” The question becomes whether the employer’s conduct would reasonably tend to coerce or interfere with employee choice. Actual impact need not be shown. In deciding whether to set aside an election result the Board will assess the totality of circumstances. Given the closeness of the election, threats quite extraordinary in their gravity, District awareness of the conduct and unwillingness to address it. The principal’s conduct tended to coerce or interfere with employee choice. The ALJ declined to overturn the election because the charter school was not named as a party to the charge. The Board’s dissenting majority affirmed this ruling.

1400.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY
1400.01000 – In General

The MCS principal is an agent of the District; he had both actual authority and apparent authority to engage in the unlawful conduct. “Actual authority” is that which an employer intentionally confers upon the agent, or intentionally or negligently allows the agent to believe himself or herself to possess. “Apparent authority” may be found where an employer reasonably allows employees to perceive that it has authorized the agent to engage in the conduct in question.

1400.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY
1400.02000 – Employer Responsibility

The MCS principal is an agent of the District; he had both actual authority and apparent authority to engage in the unlawful conduct. “Actual authority” is that which an employer intentionally confers upon the agent, or intentionally or negligently allows the agent to believe himself or herself to possess. “Apparent authority” may be found where an employer reasonably allows employees to perceive that it has authorized the agent to engage in the conduct in question.