Decision 2588E – Los Angeles Unified School District
LA-CE-5863-E
Decision Date: October 17, 2018
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: District excepted to a proposed decision concluding that it violated the EERA by: (1) denying charging party’s request that the District send a broadcast email to bargaining unit members’ District email addresses on charging party’s behalf, and (2) refusing to bargain over charging party’s proposed administrative procedures for such activities in the future.
Disposition: The Board affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Board concluded the EERA does not require a public school employer to send emails on behalf of an employee organization via the employer’s email system. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge’s ruling that the District unlawfully refused to negotiate over the employee organization’s proposal.
Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 63
Decision Headnotes
300.17000 – Other
Employees who have rightful access to their employer’s e-mail system in the course of their work have a right to use the e-mail system to engage in EERA-protected communications on nonworking time. (p. 5.) Employee organizations enjoy a corresponding right to use an employer’s e-mail system to send protected communications to employees. (p. 5.)
400.01000 – In General; Standards
To establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to rights granted under EERA. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (p. 6.)
401.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case.
To establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to rights granted under EERA. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (p. 6.)
401.04000 – Access – Union Right
A public school employer’s e-mail system is an “other means of communication” under EERA section 3543.1, subd. (b), which sets forth employee organizations’ statutory right to access the employer’s premises for communication with public employees. (pp. 6-7.) However, the employee organization’s statutory right does not require a public school employer to send broadcast e-mails to employees on the employee organization’s behalf. (p. 8.)
401.09000 – Mail Systems
A public school employer’s e-mail system is an “other means of communication” under EERA section 3543.1, subd. (b), which sets forth employee organizations’ statutory right to access the employer’s premises for communication with public employees. (pp. 6-7.) However, the employee organization’s statutory right does not require a public school employer to send broadcast e-mails to employees on the employee organization’s behalf. (p. 8.)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
A public school employer is obligated to meet and negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative of its employees on all matters within the scope of representation. (p. 8.)
605.01000 – Outright Refusal to Bargain
District’s refusal to negotiate the union’s proposed procedures whereby the District would use its internal e-mail system to transmit communications from the union to its bargaining unit members constitutes a violation of the EERA. (pp. 8-10.) The Board rejected District’s exception that it repeatedly offered to negotiate this matter and the union did not accept the offer because there was no evidence that the union declined the District’s two offers to negotiate. (pp. 9-10.) The facts are not subject to dispute because the parties submitted a stipulated factual record. (p. 2.) Therefore, the stipulated facts constitute a judicial admission that the union responded to the District’s initial offer with proposed procedures and that “the District ultimately declined to negotiate” with the union. Absent contrary evidence, the only conclusion the Board may draw from the stipulation is that the District refused to bargain over the union’s proposal. (pp. 9-10.)
1105.17000 – Stipulations
In accordance with PERB Reg. 32207, the parties may submit a stipulated factual record in lieu of a hearing. In such case, the stipulated facts shall be deemed undisputed. (p. 2.)
1105.17000 – Stipulations
The Board rejected District’s exception that it repeatedly offered to negotiate over the union’s proposal and the union did not accept the offer because there was no evidence that the union declined the District’s two offers to negotiate. (pp. 9-10.) The facts are not subject to dispute because the parties submitted a stipulated factual record. (p. 2.) Therefore, the stipulated facts constitute a judicial admission that the union responded to the District’s initial offer with proposed procedures and that “the District ultimately declined to negotiate” with the union. Absent contrary evidence, the only conclusion the Board may draw from the stipulation is that the District refused to bargain over the union’s proposal. (pp. 9-10.)
1503.01000 – In General
In accordance with PERB Reg. 32207, the parties may submit a stipulated factual record in lieu of a hearing. In such case, the stipulated facts shall be deemed undisputed. (p. 2.)
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
In accordance with PERB Reg. 32207, the parties may submit a stipulated factual record in lieu of a hearing. In such case, the stipulated facts shall be deemed undisputed. (p. 2.)