Decision A470E – Children of Promise Preparatory Academy

In an appeal from an administrative determination, the appellant must demonstrate how or why the challenged decision departs from the Board’s precedents or regulations. The appeal also must state the specific issue(s) of procedure, fact, law or rationale that is appealed and state the grounds for the appeal. (p. 4; citing PERB Regulation 32360.)

An appellant adequately provides notice of the issues on appeal by claiming the dismissal is not supported by the factual record. (pp. 4-5.)

In determining whether to grant a stay of a representation election, OGC looks to “whether the facts alleged in the unfair practice charge, if true, would likely affect the vote of employees, and, thus, the outcome of the election.” (p. 5.)

PERB may stay a decertification election to decide a party’s pending blocking charge, i.e. whether the employees’ dissatisfaction with their representative is in all likelihood attributable to the employer’s unfair practices rather than the representative’s failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents. (pp. 2-3, fn. 2.)

Where there is a final determination that the employer engaged in misconduct interfering with a representative’s ability to effectively represent bargaining unit employees (pp. 2-3), OGC may subsequently rely on the determination to find that the employer’s unlawful conduct would likely affect a decertification election and offer the employer an opportunity to show that any adverse effects of that conduct on employee free choice no longer exists, thereby permitting an election. (p. 5.)

Where a blocking charge proves an employer engaged in unlawful conduct likely to affect a decertification election, the employer may present facts to overcome the likelihood that its unlawful conduct has affected voter choice. (p. 6.) Employee declarations, submitted by the employer, attesting to conditions as they existed when they filed the decertification petition did not provide any evidence that present conditions are now neutral as required for a fair election. (pp. 3-4, 6.)

The Board may stay a decertification election to decide a party’s pending blocking charge, i.e. whether the employee’s dissatisfaction with their representative is in all likelihood attributable to the employer’s unfair practices rather than the representative’s failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents. (pp. 2-3, fn. 2.)

Where there is a final determination that the employer engaged in misconduct interfering with a representative’s ability to effectively represent bargaining unit employees (pp. 2-3), OGC may subsequently rely on the determination to find that the employer’s unlawful conduct would likely affect a decertification election and offer the employer an opportunity to show that any adverse effects of that conduct on employee free choice no longer exists, thereby permitting an election. (p. 5.)

The proper inquiry in a blocking charge is not the employees’ motivation for filing a decertification petition but whether the employer’s alleged unlawful conduct would prevent bargaining unit employees from exercising free choice in an election. (p. 6, fn. 5.)

Where a blocking charge proves an employer engaged in unlawful conduct likely to affect a decertification election, the employer may present facts to overcome the likelihood that its unlawful conduct has affected voter choice. (p. 6.) Employee declarations, submitted by the employer, attesting to conditions as they existed when they filed the decertification petition do not provide any evidence that the present conditions are now neutral as required for a fair election. (pp. 3-4, 6.)

The proper inquiry in a blocking charge is not the employees’ motivation for filing a decertification petition but whether the employer’s alleged unlawful conduct would prevent bargaining unit employees from exercising free choice in an election. (p. 6, fn. 5.)

The Board may stay a decertification election to decide a party’s pending blocking charge, i.e. whether the employee’s dissatisfaction with their representative is in all likelihood attributable to the employer’s unfair practices rather than the representative’s failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents. (pp. 2-3, fn. 2.)

In determining whether to grant a stay of a representation election, OGC looks to “whether the facts alleged in the unfair practice charge, if true, would likely affect the vote of employees, and, thus, the outcome of the election.” (p. 5.)

The Board may stay a decertification election to decide a party’s pending blocking charge, i.e. whether the employee’s dissatisfaction with their representative is in all likelihood attributable to the employer’s unfair practices rather than the representative’s failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents. (pp. 2-3, fn. 2.)

In determining whether to grant a stay of a representation election, OGC looks to “whether the facts alleged in the unfair practice charge, if true, would likely affect the vote of employees, and, thus, the outcome of the election.” (p. 5.)

Where there is a final determination that the employer engaged in misconduct interfering with a representative’s ability to effectively represent bargaining unit employees (pp. 2-3), OGC may subsequently rely on the determination to find that the employer’s unlawful conduct would likely affect a decertification election and offer the employer an opportunity to show that any adverse effects of that conduct on employee free choice no longer exists, thereby permitting an election. (p. 5.)

Where a blocking charge proves an employer engaged in unlawful conduct likely to affect a decertification election, the employer may present facts to overcome the likelihood that its unlawful conduct has affected voter choice. (p. 6.) Employee declarations, submitted by the employer, attesting to conditions as they existed when they filed the decertification petition do not provide any evidence that the present conditions are now neutral as required for a fair election. (pp. 3-4, 6.)

The proper inquiry in a blocking charge is not the employees’ motivation for filing a decertification petition but whether the employer’s alleged unlawful conduct would prevent bargaining unit employees from exercising free choice in an election. (p. 6, fn. 5.)

On appeal from an administrative determination, the appellant must demonstrate how or why the challenged decision departs from the Board’s precedents or regulations, stating the specific issue(s) of procedure, fact, law or rationale that is appealed and state the grounds for the appeal. (p. 4, citing PERB Regulation 32360.)

On appeal from an administrative determination, the appellant must demonstrate how or why the challenged decision departs from the Board’s precedents or regulations, stating the specific issue(s) of procedure, fact, law or rationale that is appealed and state the grounds for the appeal. (p. 4, citing PERB Regulation 32360.)