Decision 1916M – County of Imperial
LA-CE-293-M
Decision Date: June 28, 2007
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board affirmed the results of three recognition elections despite the fact that a county local rule, which required a majority of eligible employees in a unit to vote in order for the election to be valid, was not satisfied.
Disposition: The majority participation rule was in conflict with the MMBA and unreasonable. Thus, the county’s invalidation of the election results in reliance on the majority participation rule constituted unlawful interference. The Board, however, upheld the election results because there were no allegations raised by the parties regarding irregularities in voting, misconduct in running the election, or conduct that could be considered coercive or otherwise objectionable, and because there was no evidence suggesting the county’s application of the majority participation rule interfered with employee choice.
Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 120
Decision Headnotes
400.01000 – In General; Standards
In order to prove interference in violation of MMBA section 3506, a charging party must prove the following: (1) the charging party was engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer engaged in conduct which tends to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of that activity, and (3) the employer’s conduct was not justified by legitimate business reasons. In an election setting, the charging party need not prove evidence of actual coercion by the employer; rather, the charging party need only prove the employer’s conduct would reasonably tend to coerce or interfere with employee choice.
750.01000 – In General
A local rule providing that a representation election is valid only if a majority of eligible employees vote in the election frustrates the purposes of the MMBA and is therefore unreasonable.
1303.01000 – In General
A local rule providing that a representation election is valid only if a majority of eligible employees vote in the election frustrates the purposes of the MMBA and is therefore unreasonable. 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 in such cases is whether the employer’s conduct would reasonably tend to coerce or interfere with employee choice. Actual impact need not be shown.
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 in such cases is whether the employer’s conduct would reasonably tend to coerce or interfere with employee choice. Actual impact need not be shown.
1407.01000 – General Principles
The MMBA allows a considerable degree of local regulation, but where it sets a standard, local divergence is not allowed. Thus, the standards established by the MMBA may not be undercut by contradictory rules or procedures that would frustrate its purposes. When looking at a disputed local rule, the inquiry does not concern whether PERB would find a different rule more reasonable. Rather, the question is whether the disputed local rule is consistent with and effectuates the purposes of the MMBA. If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, then the intent of the Legislature is reflected in the plain meaning of the statute.