Decision 1912H – Regents of the University of California

SF-CE-812-H

Decision Date: June 26, 2007

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 117

Decision Headnotes

400.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES
400.01000 – In General; Standards

The University did not interfere with employees rights to union representation because the documents produced by the District indicated that the employee was informed of his right to have a representative present at the meeting as well as the University’s willingness to postpone the meeting in order to arrange representation. Additionally, the University permitted the employees to bring a representative of their choosing even though the University refused to recognize the representative as the exclusive representative.

401.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS
401.02000 – Discrimination Favoring Organization Over Another

The fact that another union may have been prevented from petitioning for certification a few days after another union’s certification did not demonstrate a violation of section 3565.

407.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH DECERTIFICATION OR RIVAL UNION PETITION
407.01000 – In General

There were no facts establishing that any misconduct occurred immediately preceding and during the pendency of a union petition for recognition. The fact that another union may have been prevented from petitioning for certification a few days after another union’s certification did not demonstrate a violation of section 3565.

407.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH DECERTIFICATION OR RIVAL UNION PETITION
407.04000 – Employer Favoritism/Absence of Strict Neutrality

There were no facts establishing that any misconduct occurred immediately preceding and during the pendency of a union petition for recognition. The fact that another union may have been prevented from petitioning for certification a few days after another union’s certification did not demonstrate a violation of section 3565.

700.00000 – EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
700.07000 – Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality

There were no facts establishing that any misconduct occurred immediately preceding and during the pendency of a union petition for recognition. The fact that another union may have been prevented from petitioning for certification a few days after another union’s certification did not demonstrate a violation of section 3565.

1109.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL
1109.02000 – Statute of Limitations

The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. While the employees did not realize the deductions were being made until sometime much later, they received constructive notice of the dues deductions both in the form of the September 2005 notice from UCLA payroll, and on their monthly pay stubs for each month in which deductions were made.