Decision 2249M – National Union of Healthcare Workers

SA-CO-78-M

Decision Date: April 18, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 155

Decision Headnotes

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

Alleged campaign misrepresentations which would reasonably tend to interfere with or restrain voters and do not merely involve representations which voters would assess reasonably as mere electioneering puffery are to be assessed under a totality of the circumstances test to determine if the alleged conduct tends to, or does, interfere with employees’ right freely to choose a representative.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

The name of a person alleged to be an agent of an employee organization or an employer is not an indispensable element of a prima facie case of interference with employee rights. While allegations that a union destroyed and removed unit members’ personal property are insufficient by themselves to establish prima facie conduct which, if true, interfered with employee’s right to freely choose a representative or constituted a serious irregularity in the conduct of the election, each allegation must be viewed not separately, but as part of the overall assessment of the union’s conduct in a totality of conduct test. The United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision No. 944) formulation that a “Charging Party must allege with specificity who, what, when, where and how” of the respondent’s alleged violation may be useful in explaining to a charging party how to plead a violation, but is it is not a hurdle over which every charging party must leap at the risk of dismissal.

1304.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; OBJECTION TO ELECTIONS
1304.05000 – Union Conduct

Like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), PERB protects against campaign misconduct such as threats, promises or the like, which interfere with employee free choice, as well as against statements made in a fraudulent manner preventing an employee from evaluating the truth of the statement. (Midland National Life Insurance Co. (1982) 263 NLRB 127; see also Triple E Produce Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 42, 50.)

1400.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY
1400.03000 – Union Responsibility

Where it is alleged that: (1) a union announces that its agents will wear identification badges; (2) persons then appear in the garb of that union wearing identification badges; (3) such persons say to voters that they are agents of the union; and (4) such persons’ conduct tends to or does promote the interest of the union; PERB may conclude prima facie that such persons are union agents.