Decision 1916M – County of Imperial

LA-CE-293-M

Decision Date: June 28, 2007

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 120

Decision Headnotes

400.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES
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.

750.00000 – EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE
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.

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
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.

1304.00000 – 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 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.

1407.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
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.