Decision 2034S – Civil Service Division, California State Employees Association (Eisenberg)

SF-CO-53-S

Decision Date: June 4, 2009

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 100

Decision Headnotes

202.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS
202.01000 – In General; Statutory Definition

Charging party failed to name the proper labor organization as a party to the case, where charge alleging the Service Employees International Association, Local 1000 (SEIU) expelled him from membership for filing an unfair practice charge was filed against the Civil Service Division, California State Employees Association, rather than SEIU.

801.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION
801.01000 – In General

Actions of the president of employee group in maintaining a website critical of incumbent union and collecting signatures on decertification petition that was not filed with PERB did not unlawfully interfere with charging party’s ability to pursue his own decertification petition or to create a new employee organization to represent the bargaining unit. Charging party failed to demonstrate how president’s actions resulted in “some harm” to charging party’s decertification efforts, where charging party failed to establish that he was unable to obtain the necessary signatures to file his decertification petition, or that any bargaining unit member forewent signing charging party’s petition because of the president’s actions. Even if the president’s activities interfered with charging party’s activities, the charging party failed to establish that this activity was not itself protected activity. A respondent’s speech causes no cognizable harm to employee rights unless it contains a “threat of reprisal or promise of benefit.” Under this standard, even if actions of the president of employee group in maintaining a website critical of incumbent union affected charging party’s ability to pursue his own decertification efforts, charging party has not demonstrated that maintenance of website constitutes a “threat or reprisal or promise benefit.”

801.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION
801.04000 – Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc.

Charging party failed to state prima facie case that SEIU expelled him from membership in retaliation for filing an unfair practice charge. Even assuming it was an adverse action for SEIU to terminate his membership, charging party failed to name the proper labor organization as a party to the case, where charge was filed against the Civil Service Division, California State Employees Association, rather than SEIU. In addition, charging party failed to provide any facts suggesting a causal connection between the filing of the unfair practice charge and the union’s decision to terminate his membership, and failed to provide facts establishing that the union’s rules concerning membership were unreasonable or unreasonably applied to charging party.

801.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION
801.06000 – Obstruction of Board or Other Proceedings

Actions of the president of employee group in maintaining a website critical of incumbent union and collecting signatures on decertification petition that was not filed with PERB did not unlawfully interfere with charging party’s ability to pursue his own decertification petition or to create a new employee organization to represent the bargaining unit. Charging party failed to demonstrate how president’s actions resulted in “some harm” to charging party’s decertification efforts, where charging party failed to establish that he was unable to obtain the necessary signatures to file his decertification petition, or that any bargaining unit member forewent signing charging party’s petition because of the president’s actions. Even if the president’s activities interfered with charging party’s activities, the charging party failed to establish that this activity was not itself protected activity.