Home | Decisions | Keyword Search by Headnotes

Keyword Search by Headnotes

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.15000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Wage Increases or Employee Benefits
In cases where two employee organizations are competing for the right to represent the same employees, the employer must remain neutral. To establish a violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on encouraging employees to join any organization in preference to another, the test is whether the employer’s conduct tends to influence free choice or provide stimulus in one direction or the other. (p. 26.) Since the rival nonexclusive representative announced its organizing campaign, the school district stopped providing a vehicle and credit card for the existing nonexclusive representative’s use, but continued to provide stipends to organization representatives, release time for executive board members, an operating budget, and use of an office. Likewise, the school district continued to maintain policies declaring that the existing nonexclusive representative is the representative of teachers, including for disciplinary matters. The school district’s survey solicited teachers’ views on the existing nonexclusive representative’s representation. The school district continued to meet with the existing nonexclusive representative about matters fundamental to the employment relationship (e.g., length of the school year, wages, health benefits), and made a significant change in benefits without first notifying or meeting with the rival nonexclusive representative. The superintendent sent an e-mail to employees announcing a $4,000 payment and informed them of a recommendation of a 5.5 percent increase to salary schedules, two fewer duty days, and an increase in the school district’s contribution to its health benefits fund. The superintendent credited these recommendations to the existing nonexclusive representative and the other organizations participating on the committee. (pp. 27-28.) Due to this conduct, the Board found that the school district preferred one nonexclusive representative over another and thus failed to maintain strict neutrality. more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.15000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Wage Increases or Employee Benefits
An employer that does not maintain strict neutrality in the face of competing employee organizations is deemed to encourage employees to prefer one organization over another, in violation of employees’ right to choose an organization free of employer interference. Because the school district continued to provide financial support and other assistance to the existing nonexclusive representative without offering the same level of support to the rival nonexclusive representative, the district’s conduct tends to encourage employees to support the existing nonexclusive representative over the rival nonexclusive representative in order to continue receiving the negotiated benefits from the school district. Thus, the Board found there was reasonable cause to believe the school district breached its duty of strict neutrality in violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d). (pp. 28-29.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.12000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Payment to Employees for Time Spent in Union Activities
The most common type of unlawful support case involves an employer that provides support to one of two competing nonexclusive representatives. The Board usually resolves such cases by deciding whether the employer failed to remain strictly neutral between the two competing organizations. The school district must treat both nonexclusive representatives equally with respect to financial or other support. (p. 22.) Here, the school district provided a high level of support to the existing nonexclusive representative because it is 100 percent employer-funded. Also, the school district dominated and interfered with the existing nonexclusive representative’s internal affairs and expressed a preference for the existing nonexclusive representative over the rival nonexclusive representative, while failing to offer the rival organization the same support. This was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe the school district violated—and continued to violate—EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on contributing financial or other support to an employee organization. (pp. 25-26.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.12000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Payment to Employees for Time Spent in Union Activities
EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) prohibits contributing “financial or other support” to an employee organization. In determining if an employer has violated this prohibition, PERB examines the totality of the employer’s conduct to determine whether its support would tend to inhibit employees in their free choice regarding a bargaining representative or interfere with the representative’s maintenance of an arm’s length relationship with the employer. This is an objective test; it is not necessary to look into the employer’s intent or the employees’ subjective reaction to the employer’s assistance to the employee organization. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.12000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Payment to Employees for Time Spent in Union Activities
The school district’s de facto recognition of the existing nonexclusive representative continued after a rival nonexclusive representative gave notice of its organizing campaign, including by: (1) hosting the existing nonexclusive representative’s webpage on the school district’s website; (2) directing its Technology Department to assist the preferred nonexclusive representative in two elections; (3) offering to have its legal counsel review the preferred nonexclusive representative’s bylaws; (4) allowing the existing nonexclusive representative to use the school district’s survey to poll teachers about their views on the existing nonexclusive representative; and (5) setting up an e-mail list for the existing nonexclusive representative’s president to communicate with teachers via the school district’s e-mail system. The totality of the circumstances established reasonable cause to believe that the school district had—and continued to have—pervasive involvement in the affairs of the existing nonexclusive representative in violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d). (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.12000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Payment to Employees for Time Spent in Union Activities
A prima facie case of unlawful domination or assistance was found where (1) the school district’s official policy held the nonexclusive representative out as the representative for teachers, thereby giving it the school district’s imprimatur, (2) the school district’s official disciplinary policy provided that a teacher may have the nonexclusive representative’s representative present at disciplinary meetings, (3) the school district’s organizational chart shows that the nonexclusive representative’s president reports to the school district Superintendent, (4) the school district and the nonexclusive representative jointly develop a yearly survey, which is administered by the nonexclusive representative’s representatives at each school site, (5) the nonexclusive representative’s representatives needed the school district’s permission to revise its bylaws, and before meeting with teachers in large groups at school sites, and (6) the nonexclusive representative sat on several committees with other employee organizations and administrators that provided recommendations to the school district’s board on employment matters. more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.10000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Special Facilities and Services
The most common type of unlawful support case involves an employer that provides support to one of two competing nonexclusive representatives. The Board usually resolves such cases by deciding whether the employer failed to remain strictly neutral between the two competing organizations. The school district must treat both nonexclusive representatives equally with respect to financial or other support. (p. 22.) Here, the school district provided a high level of support to the existing nonexclusive representative because it is 100 percent employer-funded. Also, the school district dominated and interfered with the existing nonexclusive representative’s internal affairs and expressed a preference for the existing nonexclusive representative over the rival nonexclusive representative, while failing to offer the rival organization the same support. This was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe the school district violated—and continued to violate—EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on contributing financial or other support to an employee organization. (pp. 25-26.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.10000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Special Facilities and Services
EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) prohibits contributing “financial or other support” to an employee organization. In determining if an employer has violated this prohibition, PERB examines the totality of the employer’s conduct to determine whether its support would tend to inhibit employees in their free choice regarding a bargaining representative or interfere with the representative’s maintenance of an arm’s length relationship with the employer. This is an objective test; it is not necessary to look into the employer’s intent or the employees’ subjective reaction to the employer’s assistance to the employee organization. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.10000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Special Facilities and Services
The school district’s de facto recognition of the existing nonexclusive representative continued after a rival nonexclusive representative gave notice of its organizing campaign, including by: (1) hosting the existing nonexclusive representative’s webpage on the school district’s website; (2) directing its Technology Department to assist the preferred nonexclusive representative in two elections; (3) offering to have its legal counsel review the preferred nonexclusive representative’s bylaws; (4) allowing the existing nonexclusive representative to use the school district’s survey to poll teachers about their views on the existing nonexclusive representative; and (5) setting up an e-mail list for the existing nonexclusive representative’s president to communicate with teachers via the school district’s e-mail system. The totality of the circumstances established reasonable cause to believe that the school district had—and continued to have—pervasive involvement in the affairs of the existing nonexclusive representative in violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d). (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.10000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Special Facilities and Services
A prima facie case of unlawful domination or assistance was found where (1) the school district’s official policy held the nonexclusive representative out as the representative for teachers, thereby giving it the school district’s imprimatur, (2) the school district’s official disciplinary policy provided that a teacher may have the nonexclusive representative’s representative present at disciplinary meetings, (3) the school district’s organizational chart shows that the nonexclusive representative’s president reports to the school district Superintendent, (4) the school district and the nonexclusive representative jointly develop a yearly survey, which is administered by the nonexclusive representative’s representatives at each school site, (5) the nonexclusive representative’s representatives needed the school district’s permission to revise its bylaws, and before meeting with teachers in large groups at school sites, and (6) the nonexclusive representative sat on several committees with other employee organizations and administrators that provided recommendations to the school district’s board on employment matters. more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality
An employer that does not maintain strict neutrality in the face of competing employee organizations is deemed to encourage employees to prefer one organization over another, in violation of employees’ right to choose an organization free of employer interference. Because the school district continued to provide financial support and other assistance to the existing nonexclusive representative without offering the same level of support to the rival nonexclusive representative, the district’s conduct tends to encourage employees to support the existing nonexclusive representative over the rival nonexclusive representative in order to continue receiving the negotiated benefits from the school district. Thus, the Board found there was reasonable cause to believe the school district breached its duty of strict neutrality in violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d). (pp. 28-29.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality
In cases where two employee organizations are competing for the right to represent the same employees, the employer must remain neutral. To establish a violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on encouraging employees to join any organization in preference to another, the test is whether the employer’s conduct tends to influence free choice or provide stimulus in one direction or the other. (p. 26.) Since the rival nonexclusive representative announced its organizing campaign, the school district stopped providing a vehicle and credit card for the existing nonexclusive representative’s use, but continued to provide stipends to organization representatives, release time for executive board members, an operating budget, and use of an office. Likewise, the school district continued to maintain policies declaring that the existing nonexclusive representative is the representative of teachers, including for disciplinary matters. The school district’s survey solicited teachers’ views on the existing nonexclusive representative’s representation. The school district continued to meet with the existing nonexclusive representative about matters fundamental to the employment relationship (e.g., length of the school year, wages, health benefits), and made a significant change in benefits without first notifying or meeting with the rival nonexclusive representative. The superintendent sent an e-mail to employees announcing a $4,000 payment and informed them of a recommendation of a 5.5 percent increase to salary schedules, two fewer duty days, and an increase in the school district’s contribution to its health benefits fund. The superintendent credited these recommendations to the existing nonexclusive representative and the other organizations participating on the committee. (pp. 27-28.) Due to this conduct, the Board found that the school district preferred one nonexclusive representative over another and thus failed to maintain strict neutrality. more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality
The most common type of unlawful support case involves an employer that provides support to one of two competing nonexclusive representatives. The Board usually resolves such cases by deciding whether the employer failed to remain strictly neutral between the two competing organizations. The school district must treat both nonexclusive representatives equally with respect to financial or other support. (p. 22.) Here, the school district provided a high level of support to the existing nonexclusive representative because it is 100 percent employer-funded. Also, the school district dominated and interfered with the existing nonexclusive representative’s internal affairs and expressed a preference for the existing nonexclusive representative over the rival nonexclusive representative, while failing to offer the rival organization the same support. This was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe the school district violated—and continued to violate—EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on contributing financial or other support to an employee organization. (pp. 25-26.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality
EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) prohibits contributing “financial or other support” to an employee organization. In determining if an employer has violated this prohibition, PERB examines the totality of the employer’s conduct to determine whether its support would tend to inhibit employees in their free choice regarding a bargaining representative or interfere with the representative’s maintenance of an arm’s length relationship with the employer. This is an objective test; it is not necessary to look into the employer’s intent or the employees’ subjective reaction to the employer’s assistance to the employee organization. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality
The school district’s de facto recognition of the existing nonexclusive representative continued after a rival nonexclusive representative gave notice of its organizing campaign, including by: (1) hosting the existing nonexclusive representative’s webpage on the school district’s website; (2) directing its Technology Department to assist the preferred nonexclusive representative in two elections; (3) offering to have its legal counsel review the preferred nonexclusive representative’s bylaws; (4) allowing the existing nonexclusive representative to use the school district’s survey to poll teachers about their views on the existing nonexclusive representative; and (5) setting up an e-mail list for the existing nonexclusive representative’s president to communicate with teachers via the school district’s e-mail system. The totality of the circumstances established reasonable cause to believe that the school district had—and continued to have—pervasive involvement in the affairs of the existing nonexclusive representative in violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d). (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.06000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Management Participation in Union Meetings
A prima facie case of unlawful domination or assistance was found where (1) the school district’s official policy held the nonexclusive representative out as the representative for teachers, thereby giving it the school district’s imprimatur, (2) the school district’s official disciplinary policy provided that a teacher may have the nonexclusive representative’s representative present at disciplinary meetings, (3) the school district’s organizational chart shows that the nonexclusive representative’s president reports to the school district Superintendent, (4) the school district and the nonexclusive representative jointly develop a yearly survey, which is administered by the nonexclusive representative’s representatives at each school site, (5) the nonexclusive representative’s representatives needed the school district’s permission to revise its bylaws, and before meeting with teachers in large groups at school sites, and (6) the nonexclusive representative sat on several committees with other employee organizations and administrators that provided recommendations to the school district’s board on employment matters. more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.04000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Management Aid or Instigation in Forming Unions Committees, Etc.; Statements in General; Free Speech
The most common type of unlawful support case involves an employer that provides support to one of two competing nonexclusive representatives. The Board usually resolves such cases by deciding whether the employer failed to remain strictly neutral between the two competing organizations. The school district must treat both nonexclusive representatives equally with respect to financial or other support. (p. 22.) Here, the school district provided a high level of support to the existing nonexclusive representative because it is 100 percent employer-funded. Also, the school district dominated and interfered with the existing nonexclusive representative’s internal affairs and expressed a preference for the existing nonexclusive representative over the rival nonexclusive representative, while failing to offer the rival organization the same support. This was sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe the school district violated—and continued to violate—EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on contributing financial or other support to an employee organization. (pp. 25-26.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.04000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Management Aid or Instigation in Forming Unions Committees, Etc.; Statements in General; Free Speech
EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) prohibits contributing “financial or other support” to an employee organization. In determining if an employer has violated this prohibition, PERB examines the totality of the employer’s conduct to determine whether its support would tend to inhibit employees in their free choice regarding a bargaining representative or interfere with the representative’s maintenance of an arm’s length relationship with the employer. This is an objective test; it is not necessary to look into the employer’s intent or the employees’ subjective reaction to the employer’s assistance to the employee organization. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.04000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Management Aid or Instigation in Forming Unions Committees, Etc.; Statements in General; Free Speech
The school district’s de facto recognition of the existing nonexclusive representative continued after a rival nonexclusive representative gave notice of its organizing campaign, including by: (1) hosting the existing nonexclusive representative’s webpage on the school district’s website; (2) directing its Technology Department to assist the preferred nonexclusive representative in two elections; (3) offering to have its legal counsel review the preferred nonexclusive representative’s bylaws; (4) allowing the existing nonexclusive representative to use the school district’s survey to poll teachers about their views on the existing nonexclusive representative; and (5) setting up an e-mail list for the existing nonexclusive representative’s president to communicate with teachers via the school district’s e-mail system. The totality of the circumstances established reasonable cause to believe that the school district had—and continued to have—pervasive involvement in the affairs of the existing nonexclusive representative in violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d). (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.04000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Management Aid or Instigation in Forming Unions Committees, Etc.; Statements in General; Free Speech
A prima facie case of unlawful domination or assistance was found where (1) the school district’s official policy held the nonexclusive representative out as the representative for teachers, thereby giving it the school district’s imprimatur, (2) the school district’s official disciplinary policy provided that a teacher may have the nonexclusive representative’s representative present at disciplinary meetings, (3) the school district’s organizational chart shows that the nonexclusive representative’s president reports to the school district Superintendent, (4) the school district and the nonexclusive representative jointly develop a yearly survey, which is administered by the nonexclusive representative’s representatives at each school site, (5) the nonexclusive representative’s representatives needed the school district’s permission to revise its bylaws, and before meeting with teachers in large groups at school sites, and (6) the nonexclusive representative sat on several committees with other employee organizations and administrators that provided recommendations to the school district’s board on employment matters. more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.02000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Domination vs Assistance
EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of any employee organization looks to whether the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the employee organization’s ability to maintain an arm’s length relationship with the employer. In such cases, PERB considers the level of the employer’s involvement in the employee organization’s internal affairs. (pp. 18-19.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.02000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Domination vs Assistance
To show a prima facie violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d), the charging party must allege facts which demonstrate that the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the internal activities of an employee organization or tends to influence employees’ choice between employee organizations. Whether an employer has violated EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) is based on the totality of the circumstances. Proof that an employer intended to unlawfully dominate, assist, or influence employees’ free choice is not required. Nor is it necessary to prove that employees actually changed their support as a result of the employer’s conduct. (p. 18.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General
EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d)’s prohibition on dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of any employee organization looks to whether the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the employee organization’s ability to maintain an arm’s length relationship with the employer. In such cases, PERB considers the level of the employer’s involvement in the employee organization’s internal affairs. (pp. 18-19.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General
To show a prima facie violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d), the charging party must allege facts which demonstrate that the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the internal activities of an employee organization or tends to influence employees’ choice between employee organizations. Whether an employer has violated EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) is based on the totality of the circumstances. Proof that an employer intended to unlawfully dominate, assist, or influence employees’ free choice is not required. Nor is it necessary to prove that employees actually changed their support as a result of the employer’s conduct. (p. 18.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21
I063E Clovis Unified School District
701.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DEFENSES; In General
A charging party union need not establish employer intent or actual diminution in its level of support in order to succeed in a charge under EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d). The Board found that there was substantial information to suggest that the school district’s conduct has led to diminished support for the rival nonexclusive representative, thereby further supporting the conclusion that there is reasonable cause to believe the school district violated—and continued to violate—EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (d) by showing preference for one nonexclusive representative over the other. (p. 29.) more or view all topics or full text.		 46 93 12/16/21