Decision A470E – Children of Promise Preparatory Academy

LA-DP-403-E

Decision Date: November 29, 2018

Decision Type: Administrative Appeal

Description:  The Academy appealed an administrative determination by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel, dismissing a group of Academy employees’ petition to decertify the Association as their bargaining unit’s exclusive representative.  OGC found that the Academy’s unfair practices, proven in Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2018) PERB Decision No. 2558, would likely affect employee free choice in an election and thus influence its outcome.

Disposition:  The Board adopted OGC’s administrative determination, finding that the Academy did not present facts sufficient to overcome the likelihood that its unlawful conduct would affect voter choice in an upcoming election.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 82

Decision Headnotes

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.21000 – Administrative Appeals

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.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.21000 – Administrative Appeals

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

1302.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION
1302.03000 – Stay of

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.09000 – Stay of

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.11000 – Employer Conduct

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.11000 – Employer Conduct

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.11000 – Employer Conduct

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.11000 – Employer Conduct

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.11000 – Employer Conduct

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.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.09000 – Stay of

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.04000 – Blocking Charge

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.04000 – Blocking Charge

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.04000 – Blocking Charge

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.04000 – Blocking Charge

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.)

1303.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; ELECTIONS
1303.04000 – Blocking Charge

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.)

1302.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION
1302.04000 – Bar To

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.)

1302.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION
1302.04000 – Bar To

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.)

1302.00000 – REPRESENTATION ISSUES; DECERTIFICATION
1302.04000 – Bar To

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.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

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.)