Decision A278E – San Diego Unified School District

PERB Regulation 32738(c); For PERB to sustain election objections, an effect on the election result must be shown or logically inferred. The Board will infer the effect if the actions had the natural and probable effect of discouraging voter participation in the representation election; p. 11. When a party to the election engages in a concerted effort to obtain unsupervised access to marked ballots, in direct violation of PERB's voting instructions, the laboratory conditions of the election are compromised. This conduct calls into question the fairness, validity and integrity of the election; p. 23. When a party engages in a concerted effort to gain unsupervised access to marked ballots, the Board will not evaluate the party's intent, consider whether the party's unsupervised possession led to tampering, or determine whether the conduct was determinative on the consider whether the party's unsupervised possession led to tampering, or determine whether the conduct was determinative on the aside and order a new election; pp. 23-24.

EERA section 3543.5(d) imposes an obligation of strict neutrality on employers during the election process; p. 12. Allegations that the District included a "me to" provision in the contract, delayed sunshining its proposal and varied from past practice when it issued a joint contract announcement in another unit were insufficient to show that the employer violated their obligation of strict neutrality during an election period; pp. 13-17.

Union prize drawings that required the voters to identify themselves, did not require the voters to identify their affiliation or how they voted, and were held after ballots were mailed to PERB were not an unlawful promise and grant of valuable benefits during an election period; pp. 18-19. When a party to the election engages in a concerted effort to obtain unsupervised access to marked ballots, in direct violation of PERB's voting instructions, the laboratory conditions of the election are compromised. This conduct calls into question the fairness, validity and integrity of the election. The Board will not evaluate the party's intent, consider whether the party's unsupervised possession led to tampering, or determine whether the conduct was determinative on the outcome of the election. Since this conduct compromises the fairness and integrity of the whether the conduct was determinative on the outcome of the election. Since this conduct compromises the fairness and integrity of the involved; pp. 23-24.

PERB treats the demonstration of unlawful conduct in the election as a threshold question. The next issue is whether the unlawful activities establish a probable impact on the employees' vote. The Board does not require the objecting party to prove the conduct actually impacted the employees' votes. In deciding whether to set aside an election result, the Board will look at the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative effect of the conduct; p. 11. An objection regarding the integrity of the election process requires an assessment of whether the facts indicate a reasonable possibility that an irregularity occurred; p. 19. PERB will set aside an election if it determines that a party to the election jeopardized the integrity of the election process. The conduct must call into question the fairness and validity of the election; p. 21. conduct must call into question the fairness and validity of the election; p. 21. intent, consider whether the party's unsupervised possession led to tampering, or determine whether the conduct was determinative on the outcome of the election. Since this conduct compromises the fairness and integrity of the election, the Board will set the election aside and order a new election; pp. 23-24.

PERB Regulation 32738(c); For PERB to sustain election objections, an effect on the election result must be shown or logically inferred. The Board will infer the effect if the actions had the natural and probable effect of discouraging voter participation in the representation election; p. 11. When a party to the election engages in a concerted effort to obtain unsupervised access to marked ballots, in direct violation of PERB's voting instructions, the laboratory conditions of the election are compromised. This conduct calls into question the fairness, validity and integrity of the election; p. 23. When a party engages in a concerted effort to gain unsupervised access to marked ballots, the Board will not evaluate the party's intent, consider whether the party's unsupervised possession led to tampering, or determine whether the conduct was determinative on the outcome of consider whether the party's unsupervised possession led to tampering, or determine whether the conduct was determinative on the outcome of aside and order a new election; pp. 23-24.