Imagine Schools at Imperial Valley (PERB A431E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
IMAGINE SCHOOLS AT IMPERIAL VALLEY,
Employer,
and
GROUP OF EMPLOYEES,
Petitioner,
and
IMAGINE SCHOOLS TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION,
Exclusive Re resentative.
Case Nos. LA-DP-406-E
LA-CE-6062-E
Administrative Appeal
PERB Order No. Ad-431
January 13, 2016
Appearances: 	California Teachers Association, by Jean Shinn, Attorney for Imagine Schools
Teachers Association; Fisher & Phillips, LLP, by L. Brent Garrett, Attorney for Imagine
Schools at Imperial Valley.
Before Martinez, Chair; Huguenin and Winslow, Members.
DECISION
HUGUENIN, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on an appeal by Imagine Schools at Imperial Valley (Imagine Schools) from
an administrative determination (Determination) (attached) pursuant to the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA) and PERB Regulation 32752.1 The Determination grants
the request oflmagine Schools Teachers Association (Association) for a stay of further
processing of a petition (Petition) filed by Group of Employees (Petitioner) seeking to
decertify the Association as exclusive representative of a unit of certificated employees of
1 The EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. PERB regulations
are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 31001 et seq. and may be found
on the internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

Imagine Schools. The Association filed its stay request in conjunction with an unfair practice
charge which alleged that Imagine Schools engaged in unlawful anti-union campaigning in
connection with the Petition, viz., showing and commenting on an anti-union film during a
mandatory meeting with unit employees and, shortly thereafter, disseminating to unit
employees a letter which undermined the Association's authority and contained false
information. 	Following an investigation of the unfair practice charge, PERB's Office of the
General Counsel (OGC) issued an unfair practice complaint, determining the respondent's
conduct as alleged in the charge to be unlawful. The OGC also determined that the unlawful
anti-union campaigning, as alleged in the complaint, if proven by the Association, would so
affect the election process as to prevent employee free choice. On that basis, on October 7,
2015_, the OGC issued an administrative determination granting the Association's stay request.2
We have reviewed the entire record, and deny the appeal. We conclude that the OGC
conducted an adequate investigation and adduced facts that reasonably support the
Determination. The Determination is based on factual determinations of which the parties
were aware and to which they had full opportunity to respond. Accordingly, we adopt the
OGC's administrative determination as the decision of the Board itself, as supplemented by our
discussion below of the issues raised by the appeal.
2 PERB takes administrative notice of its own records. ( County of Riverside (2012)
PERB Decision No. 2280-M; Regents of the University of California (1999) PERB Decision
No. 1359~H; San Ysidro School District (1997) PERB Decision No. 1198; El Monte Union
High School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 142.) The unfair practice complaint was
issued on October 9, 2015, two days after issuance of the Determination. Given the close
proximity in time between the issuance of the Determination and complaint, and the absence of
any other charge processing and investigation activity during that time, we assume that charge
processing and investigation had been completed and a decision to issue a complaint had been
made at the time the Determination issued. (See Pleasant Valley Elementary School District
(1984) PERB Decision No. 380, p. 5, fn. 6 (Pleasant Valley) ["The reference to investigating
the effect of the alleged unlawful conduct on the election assumes that the charge has already
been investigated and a complaint issued pursuant to Regulation 32640"].)
2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 1, 2015, Petitioner filed the Petition seeking to decertify the Association. The
following day, the OGC contacted Petitioner's representative to obtain clarification of certain
matters and informed Petitioner that a proof of service of the Petition was necessary.
On July 6, 2015, Petitioner filed an amended Petition with a proof of service. The
amended Petition averred that Imagine Schools recognized the Association in March 2014 and
that the bargaining unit in question was comprised of 33 employees.
On July 7, 2015, the OGC requested that the Assodation and Imagine Schools confirm
or refute the size of the bargaining unit, the Association's recognition date, and whether a
collective bargaining agreement existed between the Association and Imagine Schools.
Additionally, the OGC requested that Imagine Schools: (1) post the ''Notice of Decertification
Petition" (Notice) in a conspicuous location where it would be seen by unit members; and (2)
provide to PERB a copy of the Notice and a list of all employees in the bargaining unit.
On July 13, 2015, the Association confirmed that it had been recognized in March 2014
and that it had not entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Imagine Schools. In
addition, it stated that the bargaining unit was comprised of 35 employees.
On August 4, 2015, Imagine Schools provided PERB a copy of the posted Notice and
confirmed that posting had occurred on July 24, 2015. In addition, Imagine Schools filed with
PERB a list of employees in the bargaining unit.
On August 6, 2015, in a telephonic conversation with the OGC, Petitioner's
representative stated that unit employees would commence work on August 13, 2015 and that
the academic year would commence on August 24, 2015.
3

On August 25, 2015, pursuant to PERB Regulation 32752 which governs requests for
stay, the Association filed a request to stay the scheduling of an election among unit employees
together with an unfair practice charge (PERB Case No. LA-CE-6062-E) alleging unlawful
conduct by Imagine Schools.
On September 2, 2015, the OGC informed the parties by telephone that the Association
had filed a request to stay further processing of the Petition, and that Petitioner and Imagine
Schools would have until September 14, 2015, to respond to the Association's stay request.
On September 10, 2015, Imagine Schools filed its response opposing the stay request.
On September 14, 2015, Petitioner filed a response opposing the stay request. Also on
September 14, 2015, the Association filed written legal argument supporting its stay request.
On October 2, 2015, Imagine Schools filed its position statement in opposition to the
Association's unfair practice charge.
On October 9, 2015, the OGC issued a complaint on the Association's unfair practice
charge, alleging that Imagine Schools interfered with employee rights in violation of
Government Code section 3543.S(a) and denied the Association its right to represent
employees in violation of Government Code section 3543.5(b).
FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT
The complaint in PERB Case No. LA-CE-6062-E (Complaint) was based on the
following allegations:
1. On August 13, 2015, Imagine Schools held a mandatory certificated staff meeting.
During the mandatory meeting, bargaining unit employees were shown a documentary titled
"Waiting for Superman," which contained anti-union commentary. Respondent's agent Grace
4

Jiminez (Jiminez), principal and California regional director oflmagine Schools, spoke about
the documentary before and after it was shown.
2. On August 18, 2015, Jiminez distributed to bargaining unit members a letter
(Jiminez letter), either by personal service or placing the letter in school mailboxes. The letter
made unsupported anti-union commentary and misrepresented the amount of annual union
dues paid to the California Teachers Association (CTA). Paragraph 4 of PERB's complaint
states:
The letter reads in pertinent part:
Our Position -Our School is Better Off Without a Union
• 	We are committed to paying competitive teacher salaries
within the guidelines of our funding and our budget.
• 	We do not want our certificated staff to incur costly annual
union dues. The CTA union dues are over $1200.00 per year.
• 	We need to work cooperatively to promote education and
support our community.
• 	Our certificated staff have a tremendous voice through
Imagine School Task Forces.
• 	We already contribute to the CalSTRS Retirement Fund and
provide a benefit package.
• 	We believe that union representation is not the right choice
for our certificated staff.
• 	We believe unions create a divisive atmosphere between
teachers and administration.
(Complaint, p. 2, emphasis in original.) The complaint goes on to state: "Bargaining unit
members ... stated they found this letter to be informational and helpful in making an'
educated decision concerning their representational [rights]." (Ibid.)
5

ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
In the Determination, the OGC reviewed: (1) PERB's standard applicable when
assessing a request for stay of an election; (2) PERB's application of this standard in prior stay
request cases; (3) PERB's application of a related standard, viz., that for setting aside results of
an election, based on employer anti-union speech; and (4) the potential impact of the
employer's unlawful conduct on the election process. The OGC concluded that PERB had not
yet applied its standard for staying an election to conduct involving solely employer speech,
but that PERB had applied a related standard, viz., that for setting aside an election in such a
circumstance.3 Relying on this PERB precedent, the OGC reasoned that PERB's decisions in
election objection cases which apply a totality test to employer speech should inform PERB's
application in this case of its stay request standard. On this basis, the OGC assessed Imagine
Schools' alleged unlawful conduct, and concluded that if proven by the Association, the
alleged conduct would so affect the election process as to prevent employee free choice.
DISCUSSION
Introduction
We turn now to the merits of the appeal taken by Imagine Schools from the OGC's
determination to grant the stay. We first revisit our standard of review of an OGC's
determination, then discuss our regulations and precedents governing stay requests, and finally
take up Imagine Schools' contentions on appeal.
Standard of Review
When reviewing an OGC's determination to stay a decertification election, the inquiry
on appeal is whether the OGC abused his or her discretion. (Jefferson School District (1980)
3 Office of the Kern County Superintendent of Schools (1985) PERB Decision No. 533
(Kern County Superintendent).
6

PERB Order No. Ad-82, pp. 8-10 (Jefferson) [If the OGC conducts "a satisfactory
investigation and adduces facts that reasonably support her or his decision, the Board will not
overturn the [OGC's] decision. This is true whether or not we would have made the same
[decision] ourselves."]; (Pleasant Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 380 [The Board will
generally defer to the conclusions reached by its agent if it finds the conclusions supported by
facts developed during the course of a properly conducted investigation].) 	An OGC's stay
determination should be the result of sufficient investigation and analysis of the allegations and
the potential impact on the employees in the bargaining unit. (Regents of the University of
California (1984) PERB Decision No. 381-H (Regents); Grenada Elementary School District .
(1984) PERB Decision No. 387 (Grenada).) The role of the Board itself on appeal is not to
reweigh facts, but to ensure that they support the administrative determination. (Jefferson,
supra, PERB Order No. Ad-82, p. 12.) If the OGC conducts an adequate investigation and
reaches a conclusion consistent with the facts developed during the investigation, deference is
due and no abuse of discretion will be found. (Ibid.)
Stay Requests
The EERA's legislative policy design set forth in section 3540 is as follows:
It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the improvement of
personnel management and employer-employee relations within
the publjc school systems in the State of California by providing
a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public school
employees to join organizations of their own choice, to be
represented by the organizations in their professional and
employment relationships with public school employers, to select
one employee organization as the exclusive representative of the
employees in an appropriate unit, and to afford certificated
employees a voice in the formulation of educational policy.
(EERA, § 3540.) In furtherance of this policy, the Legislature provided in EERA section 3543,
subdivision (a) that "public school employees shall have the right to form, join, and participate
7

in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of
representation on all matters of employer-employee relations" and in EERA section 3543.5,
subdivisions (a) and (b), that a public school employer may neither "impose or threaten to
impose reprisals on employees, to discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees,
or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights
guaranteed by this chapter" nor "deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them by
this chapter."
To effectuate this legislative policy and the statutory rights accorded employees and
their organizations in furtherance thereof, PERB conducts elections, including decertification
elections, to facilitate employees' free choice on questions concerning representation.4
(International Union of Operating Engineers, State of California Locals 3, 12, 39 and 501,
AFL-C/O (California State Employees' Association, SEIU, AFL-C/O) (1984) PERB Decision
No. 390-S.)
4 PERB Regulation 32720 provides:
An election shall be conducted when the Board issues a decision
directing an election or approves an agreement for a consent
election, . . . [ill The Board shall determine the date, time, place
and manner of the election absent an approved agreement of the
parties.
PERB Regulation 33490 provides:
All elections shall be conducted by the Board in accordance with
election procedures described in ... these Regulations.
8

PERB Regulation 327525 authorizes the Board to stay a representation election pending
the resolution of an unfair practice charge alleging unlawful conduct which could prevent the
employees from exercising free choice. PERB may delay decertification elections "in
circumstances in which the employees' dissatisfaction with their representative is in all
likelihood attributable to the employer's unfair practices rather than to the exclusive
representative's failure to respond to and serve the needs of the employees it represents."
(Jefferson School District (1979) PERB Order No. Ad-66.) This determination is to be based
on "the judgment and discretion of the [OGC] as applied to the facts ascertained in the
investigation." (Jefferson, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-82, p. 6.)
The stay procedure "serves to insulate an election from unfair practices that may
influence its outcome." (Jefferson, supra, PERB Decision No. Ad-82.) "In considering the
stay of an election, the [OGC's] obligation is to determine whether the facts alleged in the
unfair practice complaint, if true, would be likely to affect the vote of the employees and, thus,
the outcome of the election." (Pleasant Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 380, p. 5.); see also
Grenada, supra, PERB Decision No. 387, p. 14 [for purposes of evaluating whether an
election should be blocked, the OGC must presume that the allegations in the complaint are
true].)
"It is neither the [OGC's] obligation nor function to resolve disputed facts
5 PERB Regulation 32752 provides:
The Board may stay an election pending the resolution of an
unfair practice charge relating to the voting unit upon an
investigation and a finding that alleged unlawful conduct would
so affect the election process as to prevent the employees from
exercising free choice. Any determination to stay an election
made by the Board pursuant to this section may be appealed to
the Board itself in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1,
Subchapter 4, Article 3 of these regulations.
9

or venture into a pre-judgment of the merits of the unfair practice complaint." (Pleasant
Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 380, p. 7.) In Statewide University Police Association
(1984) PERB Decision No. 381-H, p. 6, the Board noted that the regional director "did not
purport to prejudge the merits of the charge .... Rather, she correctly analyzed whether such
conduct is of such character and seriousness that, if it were proven to have occurred, it would
be reasonable to infer that it would contribute to employee dissatisfaction and hence prevent a
fair election."
The motivation of the individual petitioners in seeking a decertification election is not
determinative. The inquiry is "properly limited to the potential impact of the alleged conduct
on all of the employees in the unit, rather than the actual motivation of those filing the petition
for decertification." (Statewide University Police Association, supra, PERB Decision
No. 381-H, p. 6.) "The proper focus of the [OGC's] inquiry is an objective evaluation of the
probable effect of the conduct alleged and the possibility of a free election." (Grenada, supra,
PERB Decision No. 387, p. 11.)
PERB' s investigation is "a limited one which involves primarily an investigation and
analysis of the charges filed." (Grenada, supra, PERB Decision No. 387, p. 15.) It is
therefore improper "to reach beyond the subject matter of the complaint in making its decision
whether or not to block." (Id. at pp. 15-16 [responding to union's argument that events outside
the six-month statute of limitations should be considered].)
We tum now to Imagine Schools' appeal.
Imagine Schools' Appeal
Imagine Schools makes the following three principal contentions on appeal: (1) the
OGC applied the wrong standard, using the standard for setting aside election results, not the
10

standard for stays of election; (2) assuming arguendo the proper standard was applied, the
alleged conduct is not of the character or severity sufficient to stay the election, and in any
event it is mere speech containing no threat or promise; and (3) the Association failed to tender
to PERB a supporting "offer of proof' that the blocking charge raises a real dispute and is not
merely a delaying tactic. We examine each contention.
1. 	The OGC applied the wrong standard and thus abused her discretion.
Imagine Schools contends that the OGC mistakenly relied upon the standard for
assessing election objections rather than the standard for assessing stay requests. Imagine
Schools urges that by relying on Kern County Superintendent, supra, PERB Decision No. 533,
an objections case, the OGC erred and thereby abused her discretion. The fault and the
prejudice to itself, contends Imagine Schools, lies in reliance of the OGC on Board decisions in
which unlawful conduct, not merely speech, had been alleged and/or proved. We consider this
claim.
PERB Regulation 32572 establishes the stay standard applicable here. It requires
allegations of unlawful conduct which "would so affect the election process as to prevent the
employees from exercising free choice." By contrast, PERB Regulation 32738, subdivisions
(a)(c)(l) and (a)(c)(2) establishes the standard in cases of election objections, to wit, that. the
conduct "interfered with the employees' right to freely choose a representative," or constituted
"serious irregularity in the conduct of the election." 	The two standards are quite similar. Both
examine the alleged conduct and the likely impact of alleged conduct on the ability of
employees to exercise free choice in voting.
Here, the OGC properly assumed the truth of alleged speech of Imagine Schools'
agents, including Jiminez. The OGC surveyed prior stay decisions and concluded there were
11

none in which a stay was granted or denied solely because of an employer's anti-union speech.
She then looked for guidance to PERB decisions setting aside election results based on
employer speech. 	Many of those cases involved employer speech and other conduct.
However, the OGC identified one decision in which employer speech was deemed sufficient to
have impacted employee free choice. (Kern County Superintendent, supra, PERB Decision
No. 533.) 	She relied on that decision and authorities cited therein, along with other Board
decisions in election stay cases, to "inform" her application of the standard applicable under
PERB Regulation 32752 to a request for stay of election. We conclude that in so doing the
OGC did not abuse her discretion.
2. The OGC misapplied the standard and thus abused her discretion.
Imagine Schools contends that its conduct alleged here is merely speech and is
unaccompanied by other allegedly unlawful conduct, and that the OGC erred in concluding
Imagine Schools' conduct would likely "affect the vote of the employees, and, thus, the
outcome of the election." We examine the OGC's determination.
We first note that the OGC conducted a thorough investigation. She sought the
positions of all parties. (Determination, p. 4.) She received responses to that invitation from
all parties. (Ibid.) She prepared a thorough analysis from which she concluded that the alleged
conduct of Imagine Schools, if true, would prevent the exercise of employee free choice.
a. Showing the film "Waiting for Superman."
Imagine Schools urges that it had a legitimate business justification for showing this
film at a mandatory all-employee meeting on the first day of school. Nonetheless, the OGC
reasonably concluded that in the context of a recently filed decertification petition, an
employer's mandatory showing of a film critical of teachers' unions would logically tend to
12

have a coercive effect on employees. Imagine Schools urges that its affirmative defense of
business justification outweighs the interference, if any, arising from the anti-union aspects of
the film, and thus excuses whatever coercive impact the film might have on the outcome of the
election. We are not persuaded.
When investigating a stay request, the OGC presumes the truth of complaint allegations
and does not consider possible affirmative defenses. 6 Appeals from stay orders are not the
appropriate platform for debating the lawfulness of the employer's conduct. The proper arena
for litigating the merits is the formal hearing on the unfair practice charge. At that time, the
employer may present its affirmative defense. At this stage, the only relevant issue is whether
the employer's conduct, as alleged in the complaint, will so taint the election process as to
interfere with employee free choice. We find reasonable the OGC's conclusion that the anti-
union aspects of the film, considered in context ( a mandatory meeting on the first working day
of the school year and commentary by Jiminez during the meeting before and after the film
was screened), would likely affect the vote of the employee and thus the outcome of the
election. (Jefferson School District, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-66; Pleasant Valley, supra,
PERB Decision No. 380.) The conclusion is well within the OGC's discretion and not an
abuse thereof.
b. Distributing to employees the Jiminez letter.
Imagine Schools urges that its distribution to employees of a letter from Jiminez was
lawful, arguing that the letter amounted to the legitimate exercise of employer speech setting
forth statements of fact. We are not persuaded.
6 Grenada, supra, PERB Decision no. 387, citing to Pleasant Valley, supra, PERB
Decision No. 380.
13

In our view the OGC reasonably concluded that given the filing of the recent
decertification petition, the letter undermined the Association. Among the contents of the
letter reasonably relied upon by the OGC for this conclusion are the following expressions of
opposition to the Association and support for decertification, viz., "Our School Is Better Off
Without a Union," "unions create a divisive atmosphere between teachers and administration,"
and "union representation is not the right choice for our certificated staff." In so concluding,
the OGC reasonably exercised, and did not abuse, its discretion.
Imagine Schools further urges that the OGC erred in concluding that the letter from
Jiminez overstated significantly (by approximately 50 percent) the amount of Association's
annual dues, and that this deceptive statement about Association dues would tend to interfere
with employee free choice. Imagine Schools argues on appeal that the Association had rebuttal
time in which to correct the misstatement, and that the OGC failed to consider in her analysis
that perhaps the Imagine Schools statement about the Association's dues was justified as "to
the best of [its] knowledge." We find both assertions unpersuasive.
In its position statement filed in response to the Association's charge on October 2,
2105, Imagine Schools acknowledged that it based its statements about the amount of
Association dues on its beliefs about dues paid by employees in other school districts and on
Jiminez's recollections about what was paid twenty years earlier at a different employer. We
regard such sources as inherently unreliable and insufficient to demonstrate a good faith basis
for Imagine Schools' claims in the Jiminez letter about the amount of Association dues. As to
Imagine Schools' claim on appeal that the Association had ample opportunity to rebut or
correct inaccurate statements about the amount of the Association's dues, an opportunity for
rebuttal cannot be counted on to undo the taint on the election process where bargaining unit
14

members considered the letter "informational" and "helpful" in making an "educated" decision
concerning their representational status.
We conclude that the OGC reasonably viewed as a misrepresentation the Imagine
Schools' claim in the Jiminez letter that the Association's annual dues were significantly
higher than claimed by the Association. We conclude further that this accusation that the
Association was being untruthful about the amount of its dues had the probable effect of
undermining the Association and tended to impede employee free choice. Again, we find that
the OGC did not abuse her discretion.
Finally, Imagine Schools avers that the OGC should have, but did not, afford the same
weight to statements made in opposition to the stay request as it did to allegations in the
Association's unfair practice charge, and that this discrepancy evidences OGC bias. We are
not persuaded.
When evaluating a request for stay, the OGC's task is to determine whether the facts
alleged in the complaint, if true, would likely affect the vote of employees, and, thus, the
outcome of the election. (Pleasant Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 380, p. 5.) The OGC
examines the conduct alleged in the complaint, and determines whether it is "of such character
and seriousness that, if it were proven to have occurred, it would be reasonable to infer that it
would contribute to employee dissatisfaction and hence prevent a fair election." (Regents,
supra, PERB Decision No. 381-H, p. 6.) In making that assessment, the OGC does not resolve
factual disputes or venture into a pre-judgment of the merits of the complaint. The OGC was
correct to accept the Association's allegations as fact for purposes of the investigation. We
defer to the OGC's judgment and discretion in determining the proper weight and
15

consideration to be given each of the parties' submissions, guided by the fundamental tenet
that the allegations in the complaint are presumed true.
3. The OGC did not require an "offer of proof' from the Association.
Imagine Schools contends that like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), PERB
should have required, and the OGC abused her discretion by not requiring, that the Association
submit in support of its stay request an "offer of proof' to establish that the stay request was
made for legitimate reasons and not for delay. We are not persuaded.
PERB has not adopted the "offer of proof' procedure recently established by the NLRB
to discourage parties from filing frivolous or meritless stay requests.7 PERB regulations
contain no similar provision, and PERB may not modify its regulations by its decisional law.
(State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2009) PERB Order No.
Ad-382-S, pp. 4-5.) The OGC therefore did not abuse her discretion in failing to require the
Association to submit an "offer of proof."
Conclusion
In determining to stay further processing of the Petition, the OGC conducted a thorough
investigation, correctly stated the law, cited to appropriate PERB precedent, and properly
applied the law. Her conclusions are supported by the record. We conclude that she acted well
within her discretion. We decline to set aside the OGC's determination and, instead, adopt it
as the decision of the Board itself, as supplemented by our discussion herein.
7 NLRB Casehandling Manual, Part Two: Representation Proceedings (2014) section
11730.
16

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the OGC's administrative determination in Case No. LA-DP-
406-E is hereby AFFIRMED.
Chair Martinez and Member Winslow joined in this Decision.
17

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
IMAGINE SCHOOLS AT IMPERIAL VALLEY,
Employer,
and
GROUP OF EMPLOYEES,
Petitioner,
and
IMAGINE EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION,
CTA/NEA
Exclusive Re resentative.
REPRESENTATION
CASE NO. LA-DP-406-E
ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION
(October 7, 2015)
Appearances: Gonzalo Estrada, Representative for Group of Employees, California Teachers'
Association, by Jean Shin, Attorney for Imagine Schools Teachers Association; Fisher &
Phillips, LLP, by L. Brent Garrett, Attorney for Imagine Schools at Imperial Valley.
Before Mirna Solis, Regional Attorney.
INTRODUCTION
On July 1, 2015, a group of employees (Petitioners) filed a decertification petition
(Petition) to decertify the Imagine Educators' Association (Association) the exclusive
representative of the certificated bargaining unit at the Imagine Schools at Imperial Valley
(Imagine Schools). Thereafter, the Association filed an unfair practice charge (blocking
charge), Case No. LA-CE-6062-E, asserting that Imagine Schools engaged in unlawful anti-
union campaigning in connection with the Petition. Concurrently filed with the blocking
charge, is a request to stay further processing of the Petition until the unfair practice charge has
been resolved. The Association asserts Imagine Schools showed an anti~union film during a
mandatory meeting with employees and shortly thereafter, disseminated a letter which
undermined the Association's authority and contained false information.

It is concluded, pursuant to the discussion below, that the allegations contained in the
blocking charge, if proven by the Association, would so affect the election process as to
prevent employee free choice. Therefore, a stay of the Petition is warranted.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 1, 2015, Petitioners filed the Petition seeking to decertify the Association. The
Petition did not contain a "Notice of Decertification Petition" form1 nor was a proof of service
attached. The Petition stated that the Association had been recognized in March 2015.
On July 2, 2015, the undersigned Board agent contacted Petitioners's representative,
Gonzalo Estrada {Estrada), by telephone to confirm whether the Association was recognized in
March 2015. Estrada stated that the March 2015 date was a typographic error. The absence of
a proof of service form from the Petition was also discussed. The undersigned Board agent
. suggested. that Estrada amend the Petition to correct these deficiencies.
On July 3, 20 l 5, Petitioners attempted to correct the deficiencies by filing a short
statement confirming that they had served the Regional Director of Imagine Schools and that
the Association was recognized as the exclusive representative in March 2014.
On July 6, 2015, Petitioners filed an amended Petition correcting the date of recognition
and attached a "Notice of Decertification Petition" and a revised proof of service form
confirming service on the Executive Vice President of Imagine Schools. The Petition stated
that the Association was recognized in March 2014 and the bargaining unit was comprised of
33 employees.
On July 7, 2015, PERB asked the Association and Imagine Schools to confirm or refute
the size of the bargaining unit, the Association's recognition date, and whether a collective
1 The ;'Notice of Decertification Petition" form is page two of the Decertification
Petition and is located on PERB's website www.perb.ca.gov.
2

I
bargaining agreement (CBA) existed between the Association and Imagine Schools. The July
7, 2015; correspondence also asked that Imagine Schools post the "Notice of Decertification
Petition" (Notice) where it could be conspicuously seen by the Association's members.
Imagine Schools was also instructed to provide PERB with a copy of the Notice and a list of
all employees in the bargaining unit.2
On July 13, 2015, the Association confirmed that it had not entered into a CBA with
Imagine Schools, that the Association had been recognized in March 2014, and stated that the
bargaining unit was comprised of 35 employees, not 33 as indicated in the Petition.
On July 27, 2015, the Association and Imagine Schools filed their respective "Notice of
Appearance" forms.
On August 4, 2015, in accordance with PERB's instructions, Imagine Schools provided
PERB with a copy of the posted Notice and confirmed that it had been posted on July 24, 2015.
Additionally, Imagine Schools filed with PERB a list of employees in the bargaining unit.
On August 6, 2015, in a telephone conversation with Estrada, the undersigned Board
agent confirmed that while the academic school year would begin on August 24, 2015,
employees in the bargaining unit would begin work on August 13, 2015.
On August 25, 2015, pursuant to PERB Regulation 32752,3 the Association filed a
request to stay the ·scheduling of an election in this matter based on alleged misconduct by
2 The July 7, 2015, correspondence was erroneously mailed to an incorrect address for
the Executive Vice President of Imagine Schools. This service error was corrected on July 24,
2015, when PERB re-sent the July 7, 2015, correspondence to all the parties including Imagine
Schools at its correct mailing address, which is 1843 W. 16th Avenue, Apache Junction,
Arizona 85220.
3 The Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) is codified at Government Code
section 3540 et seq. PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title
8, section 31001 et seq. The text of the EERA and PERB Regulations may be found at
www.perb.ca.gov.
3

Imagine Schools. Concurrent with its request to stay, the Association filed its blocking charge
against Imagine Schools.
On September 2, 2015, the undersigned Board _agent informed the parties by telephone
that a request to stay any further processing of the Petition had been filed. Each party was
afforded an opportunity to file a response to the Association's request by September 14, 2015.
On September 10, 2015, Imagine Schools filed its response (Response). On September
14, 2015, the Petitioners filed their response (Petitioners's Response) and the Association filed
a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its stay request.
FACTS AS ALLEGED IN BLOCKING CHARGE
On August 13, 2015, Imagine Schools required_employees to attend a mandatory staff
development and training meeting. During the mandatory meeting, employees watched a film
titled "Waiting for Superman." (Blocking Charge, 14.) The Association asserts that the film
is commonly used as anti~union propaganda and cites to commentary by academic, Rick Ayers,
who states the film is used to "break the teacher's unions." (Ibid.)4
On August 18, 2015, Grace Jiminez (Jiminez), the Principal and California Regional
Director oflmagine Schools, distributed a letter (Jiminez Letter) to employees, either by
personal service or by placing it in the employees' school mailboxes. (Blocking 9harge,, 5.)
The Jiminez Letter reads in pertinent part as follows:
Our Position - Our School is Better Off Without A Union
• 	We are committed to paying competitive teacher salaries
within the guidelines of our funding and our budget.
4 On October 2, 2015, Imagine Schools filed a position statement to the blocking charge
which clarifies that the film is a documentary. Imagine Schools also asserts that the
documentary "critiques issues in the pub-lie school system, including issues pertaining to
school bureaucracy, teacher tenure, and teachers' unions. The documentary also discusses the
role and history ofcharter schools in improving public education."
4

• 	We do not want our certificated staff to incur costly annual
union dues. The CTA union dues are over $1200.00 per
year.
• 	We need to work cooperatively to promote education and
support our community.
• 	Our certificated staff have a tremendous voice through
Imagine School Task Forces. ·
• 	We already contribute to the CalSTRS Retirement Fund and
provide a benefit package.
• 	We believe that union representation is not the right choice
for our certificated staff.
• 	We believe unions create a divisive atmosphere between
teachers and administration.
(Blocking Charge, Exhibit A [emphasis in original].)
The Association asserts that Jiminez coerced, intimidated and, more significantly,
misled employees by doubling the amount that bargaining unit employees actually pay in
annual dues to CTA. (Blocking Charge, 17.) Although the Jiminez Letter states that CTA
annual dues are $1,200.00, the Association asserts the accurate amount is $644.00. (Ibid.) The
total amount of annual union dues, including dues to CTA, is $844.50. (Ibid.)
ISSUE
Whether Imagine Schools's screening of the film titled, "Waiting for Superman," during a
mandatory meeting with employees and dissemination of the Jiminez Letter would so affect
the decertification election process as to prevent employees from exercising free choice?
POSITioN'oF THE PARTIES
Imagine Schools appears to argue the merits of the Association's interference
allegations .. (Response, pp. 2~3.) In particular, Imagine Schools argues that neither the
screening of the film nor the issuance of the Jiminez Letter, as alleged, constituted ''unlawful
conduct." (Id. at p. 2.) Imagine Schools also appears to argue that the Association failed, in its
blocking charge, to state a prima facie case of interference. (Response, p. 2 [arguing that the
5

Association had "not alleged sufficient facts to show that the content [of the film] could
unlawfully interfere with the election"],)
Imagine Schools also argues that, as an employer, it was free to "address the issues
raised by a pending election" and "express antipathy toward .an employee organization" as long
as it did not make l<promises of benefits, threats of retaliation or otherwise coercive
statements." (Response, p. 2, citing Santa Monica Unified School District (1978) PERB
Decision No. 52.) Additionally, Imagine Schools argues that when assessing misrepresentation
allegations, PERB must determine whether the statement was made in a fraudulent manner.
(Response, pp. 3-4.) It further argues that the Association has not demonstrated how the
alleged misrepresentation concerning union dues was made in a fraudulent manner.
The Petitioners argue that the showing of "Waiting for Superman" was consistent with
past superhero themes in trainings and meetings. (Petitioners's Response, iJ 1.)5 F~r the
August 13, 2015, meeting, teachers were asked to dress up as their favorite superhero.
5 It should be noted that Petitioners's Response uses terminology not typically used by
employees. For instance, the Petitioners's Response reads in pertinent part:
... we, the certificated staff read the informational memo and
actually saw this is as an opportunity to educate our staff as many
of our teachers are new to the profession ...
In regard to the video, our school is following a super hero theme
based on various trainings we have attended. Last school year
our theme was super stars so we followed a movie and
Hollywood theme. This year we are following the super hero
theme, based on the belief that teachers are student's super
heroes. Our staff development agendas, welcome back letter and
other information is based on "What are your super hero
po,wers?" "What kind of super hero do you want to be?" All
teachers received an invitation for staff development based on
this theme and invited staff to dress up as their super hero. This
prompted discussion of what are teacher's skills that make a
difference for students. During our staff development we focused
on our mission and vision and history on how charter schools
6

Petitioners also confirm that before and after the screening of the film, Jiminez
provided commentary, presumably concerning the film.
With ryspect to the Jiminez Letter, Petitioners state that employees did not feel
intimidated or coerced, rather they saw the Jiminez Letter as providi~g "information so that
certificated [staff] make[] educated decisions about the school." (Id., ,r 2.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. 	Applicable Standard
. 	.
It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the improvement of
personnel management and errtployer~employee relations within
the public school systems in the State of California by providing
a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public school
employees to join organizations of their own choice, to be
represented by the organizations in their professional and
employment relationships with public school employers, to select
one employee organization as the exclusive representative of the
employees in an appropriate unit, and to afford certificated
employees a voice in the formulation of educational policy.
·
BERA section 3540 contains the following express purpose:
BERA further provides that "[p]ublic school employees shall have the right to form,
join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their ·own choosing for the
purpose of representation on all matters of employer~employee relations.'' (BERA,§ 3543(a).)
In fulfilling these express objectives, PERB Regulations 32720 and 334906 authorize PERB to
make a difference for those students and families that are looking-
for the supe.r hero teacher and school.
The above appears to be written from a viewpoint other than an employee's perspective, as
evidenced by references to teachers in the third person, as opposed to the first person,
discussion of mission and vision, and references to "our staff' and "our teachers."
6 PERB Regulation 32720 provides:
7

conduct elections, including decertification elections, in order to effectuate employee free
choice. Where a question concerning representation is raised during the course of an election,
PERB's statutory obligation is to expeditiously resolve such issues. (International Union of
Operating Engineers, State of California Locals 3, 12, 39 and 501, AFL-CIO (California State
Employees' Association, SEilJ, AFL-CIO) (1984) PERB Decision No. 390-S.)
The object of this administTative determination is to apply PERB Regulation 32752,
PERB's "blocking charge rule," to the alleged facts of this case to determine whether a stay of
the election process is warranted. PERB Regulation 32752 provides:
The Board may stay an election pending the resolution of an
unfair practice charge relating to the voting unit upon an
investigation and a finding that alleged unlawful conduct would
so affect the election process as to prevent the employees from
exercising free choice ....
The· Board interpreted the above language in Pleasant Valley Elementary School
District (1984) PERB Decision No. 380 (Pleasant Valley) as obligating the Board agent "to
determine whether the facts alleged in the unfair.practice complaint, if true, would be likely to
affect the vote of the employees, and, thus, the outcome of the election." (Id. at p. 5, emphasis
added.)
PERB does not apply the "blocking charge rule" mechanically, but rather determines on
a case-by-case basis whether a stay will serve the purposes of the statutes enforced by PERB.
(Pleasant Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 380.) Even before the adoption of PERB
Regulation 32752, the Board held that each stay request is to be investigated and evaluated on
An election shall be conducted when the Board issues a decision directing an election
or approves an agreement for a consent election ... [,O The Board shall determine the date,
time, place and manner of the election absent an approved agreement of the parties.
PERB Regulation 33490 provides:
All elections shall be conducted by the Board in accordance with election procedures
described in ... these Regulations.
8

its merits rather than being disposed of by rote application of a blocking charge rule.
(Jefferson School District (1979) PERB Order No. Ad-66.)
A determination to stay an election is not intended to involve adjudication of the unfair
practice charge itself. (Children ofPromise Preparatory Academy (2015) PERB Order
No. Ad-428.) In Regents of the University of California (1984) PERB Decision No. 38 l"H, the
Board held that the Board agent correctly analyzed "whether [the conduct alleged] is of such
character and seriousness that, if it were proven to have occurred, it would be reasonable to
infer that 'it would gontribute to employee dissatisfaction and hence prevent a fair election."
(Id. at p. 6, emphasis added.) And, although the truth of all relevant allegations contained in
the charges must be. assumed (Golden Plains Unified School District (2002) PERB Decision
No. 1489), allegations are not evaluated separately and without regard to the factual contexts in
which they arose. (Grenada Elementary School District (Dealey) (1984) PERB Decision No.
387 (Grenada); Antelope Valley Community College Distric( (1979) PERB Decision No. 97.)
The circumstances in which they arise may be considered. (Ibid.; Service Employees
International Union #790 (Azda) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1632-M [nothing in PERB case
law requires the Board agent to ignore facts provided by the respondent or other parties and
consider only the facts provided by the charging party].)
In Grenada, the Board held that 	was inappropriate for a Board agent assessing a stay
request to consider affirmative defenses raised by the respondent. (Grenada, supra, PERB
Decision No. 387, citing to Pleasant Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 380.) In Grenada, the
employer argued that it had no duty to negotiate with the union because it had a reasonable good
faith doubt as to the union's majority status. (Id. at pp. 13-14.) After noting that the employer's
argument "essentially state[d] its defense to the merits" of the charge, the Board held that the
employer's defense was a "matter to be addressed in the unfair practice hearing," and not in
it
9

d_etermining whether a stay is warranted. (Id. at p. 13 ["it is neither the Board agent's obligation
nor function to resolve disputed facts or venture into a pre:judgment of the merits of the unfair
practice complaint" when staying a representation election] (emphasis added).)
Contrary to the applicable standards set forth above, Imagine Schools appears to argue
the merits of the oofair practice charge allegations and its right to free speech. Since an
employer's alleged right to free speech is an affirmative defense, Imagine School's free speech
arguments are not dispositive of the Association's request to stay further processing of the
Petition.7 Rather, the standard ooder PERB Regulation 32752, which governs stay requests,
mandates that the Board agent investigate to determinate whether the alleged conduct "would so
affect the election process as to prevent the employees from exercising free choice."
1. 	PERB 's Application of the Stay Doctrine
The Association asserts that the election should be stayed pending the resolution of the
blocking charge, because Imagine Schools's anti~union statements and the showing of an anti-
ooion film would so affect the election process so as to prevent employee free choice.
PERB has foood in various cases that a stay of a representation election was warranted
when a charging party raised allegations that the respondent: discriminated against decertifying
employees, unilaterally changed working conditions within scope, and engaged in badwfaith
surface bargaining (Regents of the University a/California, supra, PERB Decision No. 381-H);
reneged on its contractual obligation to terminate employees who failed to pay their service
fees which was required as a condition of continued employment (Pleasant Valley, supra,
7 In Hartnell Community College District (Moberg) (2015) PERB Decision No. 2452i
the Board held that employer free speech was an affinnative defense. The Board also held that
the affirmative defense of employer free speech should also not be considered by a Board
agent processing an l.Ulfair practice charge unless it can be established as a matter of law. (Id. 	.
at p. 53 ["generally it is not appropriate to dismiss without a hearing interference allegations on
the basis of an affirmative defense, such as an employer's right to free speech, ooless the
defense can be established as a matter oflaw based on oodisputed facts"].)
10

PERB Decision No. 380); and refused to provide necessary and relevant information thereby
impeding the exclusive representative's ability to negotiate effectively. (Children ofPromise
Preparatory AcademJ> supra, PERB Order No. Ad-428.) The rationale in granting stays in the
above cases was that such alleged misconduct, if proven to be true, would have given
employees the impression that the exclusive representative was weak and ineffective. (Regents
of the University of California, supra, PERB Decision No. 381-H, p. 5; Pleasant Valley, supra,
PERB Decision No. 380, pp. 6-7, 13; Children of Promise Preparatory Academy, supra, PERB
Order No. Ad-42_8, pp. 9, 29.)
PERB has also stayed a decertification election, even though the petition was filed after
the filing· of an unfair practice charge, which asserted that the employer refused to negotiate
with the exclusive representative regarding 27 items. (Jefferson School District (1977) EERB8
Order No. Ad•22; see·also Jefferson School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-82.) PERB
stated the decertification election should be stayed because the "resolution of the unfair practice
charges .. , may significantly influence the outcome of the election,"' (Jefferson School District,
supra, EERB Order No. Ad-22, p. 3.)
In contrast, PERB has refused to stay a decertification election based on allegations that
the employer caused confusion in the minds of employees by posting memoranda, in which the
rival employee organization was described in terms normally used in conjunction with the
exclusive representative. (State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
(1985) PERB Order No. Ad-151-S.) Additionally, the exclusive representative alleged that
such memoranda/docum~nts were management documents, which were posted on bulletin
boards not normally used for the posting of management memoranda. On these facts, PERB
refused to stay the election because the documents were neutral on their face, had only been
. 8 Prior to January 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations
Board or EERB.
11

posted in four of 11 facilities, and were only posted for a brief period. (Id., at p. 11.) Under
such circumstances, the alleged conduct was found to be "peripheral" to the bargaining
relationship and m;>t the type of alleged misconduct which would so affect the election process
as to prevent the employees from exercising free choice. (Ibid.)
A stay was, also denied in Jefferson School District, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-82.
PERB held that continuing to stay a decertification election was no longer warranted because
the alleged unfair practices, which concerned bad faith bargaining, occurred three years before
the Board's decis_ion, the parties reached an agreement, and bargaining unit members had
expressed a desire to move forward with the election. (Jefferson School District, supra, PERB
Order No. Ad-82, pp. 17~18.) In weighing these facts, the Board determined that a continued
stay would no longer promote PERB's policy of protecting employee free choice. (Ibid.)
B. 	Employer Speech As Alleged Misconduct For Setting Aside Election Results
While many PERB cases discuss employer speech in the context of unfair labor
practices, there appears to be no PERB case law in which the Board has expressly stayed a
representation election or denied a request to stay solely because of an employer's anti-union
speech. Notwithstanding, guidance is gleaned from PERB cases, which discuss setting aside
election results because of an employer's disparaging and anti-union comments.9
In Manton Joint Union Elementary School District (1992) PERB Decision No. 960
(Manton), employees filed a decertification petition .. During the electioneering period, the
9 It should be noted that the standard for setting aside an election and staying an
election arc different. When determining whether to set aside an election, PERB will assess
whether the conduct had the natural and probable impact on employee choice. (See Pleasant
Valley Elementary School District (2004) PERB Order No. Ad-333 (Pleasant Valley ESD);
Jefferson Elementary School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 164.) The determination of
probable effect is based on consideration of the facts submitted by the objecting party, which
may include, the number, nature and timing of the improper acts, the number of employees
affected by or aware of the acts. (Pleasant Valley ESD, supra, PERB Decision No. Ad-333.)
12

union filed a blocking charge alleging misconduct by the school district. 	Specifically, the
misconduct stemmed from the superintendent's letter to employees, which stated:
Personally, I can never express to the individuals responsible for
this decertification, my admiration of their courage, commitment to
the school, the community, and the certificated staff, for the
position they have taken. A position that demonstrates an attitude
that puts the children first, one that truly [sic] desires harmony,
rather [th]an and [sic] adversarial [sic] relationship; An attitude
that fosters team work and the betterment of the school is to be
applauded.
Thank you all for your concerns for the children, staff and
_ compiunity. It is an honor to work with people that use their
position for the betterment of children and the school rather than
for self fulfilling motives.
(Manton, supra, PERB Decision No. 960, proposed decision, p. 5.)
The contents of the above~quoted letter, in conjunction with allegations that the school
district bypassed the exclusive representative, were sufficient for PERB to order the
impounding of sealed ballots from the election. While neither the Board's decision nor the
proposed decision state whether the election_process was "stayed," it is apparent that PERB's
order to imp01.md the sealed ballots had the effect of a stay because further processing of the
decertification petition ceased and there was no tally or certification of the results.10
The effect of an emp~oyer's disparaging and antiMunion comments during the election
process was also discussed in Chula Vista Elementary School District (2004) PERB Decision
No. 1647 (Chula Vista). In Chula Vista, a school principal made his opposition to unionization
wideiy known with statements such as "[teachers] didn~t need a union because of the fact that
10 Ultimately, the Board upheld the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) determination
that the superintendent's letter, as well as the bypassing of the exclusive representative,
warranted that the election be set aside and ballots be destroyed because such misconduct had a
probable impact on employee free choice. However, the Board rejected the union's argument
that a second election be delayed a year to remove any "taint" from the misconduct. (Manton,
supra, PERB Decision No. 960, pp. 6-7.)
13

the union would stop [the school] from being a charter school and doing what [the school]
needed to do to be a charter school"; "[a] union isn't necessary. You're paying dues into this
union"; and "as a charter school, it was.incumbent upon [the school] to be able to operate
without the encumbrance of the union or the district .... " (Chula Vista, supra, PERB Decision
No. 1647, proposed decision, p. 7.) The Board agreed with the ALJ's findings that these
statements, along with allegations that the principal polled employees, threatened transfers and
harassed bargaining unit members, were "extraordinary in their gravity'' and had a "probable
impac.t on the_employees' vote[.]" (Chula Vista, supra, PERB Decision No. 1647, p. 13.) The
.Board ordered that the election results be set aside. (Ibid.)
Similarly, the Board decided to set aside an.election because during a mandatory
meeting a superintendent praised a rival employee organization as having done "a really good
job" and credited them with negotiating an important term and condition of employment.
(Clovis Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 389 (Clovis).) Such allegations
were ~'overt expressions of favoritism for one employee organization over another [which]
clearly excee[ed] an employer's free speech right .... " (Clovis, supra, PERB Decision 389, p.
10.) Additionally, one principal held a mandatory meeting within 24 hours of the election and
reiterated his anti-unionization position by stating that he had done his dissertation on collective
bargaining and educational improvements should not be made through bargaining, but should be
left to the Legislature. (Clovis, supra, PERB Decision 389, proposed decision, pp. 38-39.) The
principal in Clovis also discussed agency shop and the payment of dues. He said that a vote for
no representation was a vote for the school and that it was very important for employees to vote
for no representation. (!bid.) Taken coUectively, these statements as well as other misconduct,
such as threatening retaliation and bypassing the union, were found to have had ''probable impact
14

on the employees' vote," thus warranting that the election be set aside. (Clovis, supra, PERB
Decision 389, p. 20.)
C. Alleged Anti-Union Speech by Imagine Schools
In all of the above cases, the employer's speech, in conjunction with other unlawful acts,
was found to have had a natural and probable impact on employee free choice such t~t setting
aside the election results was warranted. In the instant matter, the blocking charge only alleges
misconduct stemming from anti-union speech, i.e., the film and the Jiminez Letter.
Notwithstandi_ng,_ the Board indicated in Office of Kern County Superintendent ofSchools
(1985) PERB Decision No. 533 (Office of Kern), that unlawful speech could be the sole basis
for setting aside an election. The proposed decision in Office of Kern, which was ultimately
adopted by the Board, acknowledged that although many of PERB's earlier cases discussed an
employer's anti-union speech in conjunction with other misconduct, it was still appropriate to
apply the "totality of the circumstances" and the Hcumulative effect" standard when the o.nly
alleged misconduct is an employer's speech. (Office o,f Kern, supra, PERB Decision No. 533,
proposed decision p. 49.)
In Office of Kern, the superintendent's statements, viewed in their totality, were found to ·
have been deiivered not in the form of opinion, but as incorrect and unsupported "statements of
fact." (Id. at p. 53.) Specifically, the superintendent stated that unionization would destroy
flexibility and undermine the relationship between management and employees because he
would be forced to bring in outsiders to act as negotiators. Such statements "implied that the
mere exercise of statutory rights guaranteed to employees and to the [union] would negatively
impact[] employees." (Id. at p. 18.) The proposed decision in q(fice of Kern cited to NLRB v.
Lenkurt Electric Co. (9th Cir. 1971) 43 8 F .2d 1102, in which the court of appeal clarified that:
... an employer may not, in the absence of a factual .basis therefor,
predict adverse consequences arising from sources outside this
15

volition and control. This would not be a retaliatory threat, but
would be an improper restraint nevertheless ..... Thus, an
employer may not impliedly threaten retaliatory consequences
within his control, nor may he, in an excess of imagination and
under the guise of prediction, fabricate hobgoblin consequences
outside his control which have no basis in objective fact. (citations
omitted).
(NLRB v. Lenkurt Electric Co. (9th Cir. 1971) 438 F.2d 1102, 1106.)
While the Association does not allege unlawful acts other than the anti-union speech by
Imagine Schools, pursuant to Office of Kern, when an employer's anti-union speech is the sole
basis_ of alleged misconduct, election results may be set aside, depending on the nature and
seriousness of the speech. Therefore, if the employer's speech in Office of Kern warranted
setting aside an election because the speech had a "natural and probable impact" on employee
free· choice, then logically the employer's speech would also warrant a less severe order to
simply stay an election.
In applying the above precedent, the totality of Imagine Schools's anti-union
campaigning warrants that further processing of the Petition be stayed pending resolution of the
blocking charge. As was the case in Mar,,.ton and Office of Kern, Imagine Schools forcibly
subjected employees to anti-union speech. (Blocking Charge, 14.) On the first day back from
summer break, employees were required to attend a mandatory meeting during which an
allegedly anti"union film was shown. 11 This conduct, if proven by the Association, would tend
to affect employee free choice because the meeting was not voluntary nor was it on the
bargaining unit members' own time. Rather, Jiminez, the Principal and Regional Director, a
person of significant authority, appeared to endorse the film by making statements before and
after the film. 	Since Jiminez, who has authority over bargaining unit members' employment
n In an August 6, 2015, telephone conversation with Estrada, the undersigned Board
agent confirmed that the first workday for the 2015-2016 academic year was August 13, 2015.
16

tenure and working conditions, promoted this film during a mandatory meeting, the contents of
the film could have a coercive effect on employees. Under NLRB precedent, 12 an employer
may not use its "superior economic power" to compel employees to listen to pre-election
speech. (Clark Bros. Co. (1946) 70 NLRB 802, 805, affd. N.L.R.B. v. Clark Bros. Co. (2d Cir.
1947) 163 F.2d 373; see also Beverly Enterprises-Hawaii, Inc. (1998) 326 NLRB 335.) The
Clark Bros. decision also stated that "[t]o force employees to receive such aid, advice, and
information impairs that freedom; it is calculated to, and does, interfere with the .selection of a
repr~sentative of the employees-' choice [emphasis in original]." (Clark BrQs. Co. (1946) 70
NLRB 802, 805.)
Days after.employees were required to listen to and watch the allegedly anti-union film,
the Jiminez Letter was sent to employees, which further widermined the Association and made
statements that were not based on objective fact. 	(Blocking Charge, ,r,r 5-l 0.) The Jiminez
Letter stated that the "school is better off without a union," followed by "we are committed to
paying competitive teacher salaries within the guidelines of our funding and our budget" and
"we already contribute to the CalSTRS Retirement Fund and provide a benefit package."
(Blocking Charge, Exhibit A.) These statements must be viewed in the context of the
following significant facts-there is no CBA between the Association and Imagine Schools
which provided for these benefits and the Association had been certified or recognized as the
exclusive representative only one year and five months prior to the distribution of the Jiminez
Letter. (See Amended Petition.) Imagine Schools's statements imply that it is solely
responsible for employees' retirement and benefits package, thereby giving the impression that
retaining the Association as the exclusive representative was unnecessary. Under similar facts,
12 While PERB is not bound by decisions of the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), the Board will take cognizance of them where appropriate. (Carlsbad Unified School
District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89; Los Angeles Unified School District (1976) EERB
Decision No. 5.)
17

the Board in Manton halted the election process by impounding ballots, because the Manton
School District characterized the union as adversarial, and bypassed the union by agreeing to.
terms proposed by the decertifying employees. This conduct gave the impression that the
union was not needed and was ineffective.
Also, as was the case in Manton, Imagine Schools' s letter emphasized "team work" and
implied that the Association's presence did not promote Hcooperation" between employees and
management. Such statements would also tend to derogate the authority of the Association by
implying the μnion_was an obstacle. (Blocking Charge, Exhibit A,)
Additionally, the Jiminez Letter misrepresents that "CTA union dues are over $1200.00." ·
(Ibid.) This statement is refuted by the Association, which asserts that total annual union dues
are only $884.50 and of that amount only $664.00 is paid to CTA. (Blocking Charge, ,r 7.)
While the Petitioners state that the Jiminez Letter was not "intimating [sic] or coercing [sic]," an
employee's declaration as to the impact of alleged employer misconduct is not required. (See
State of California (Department ofPersonnel Administration), supra, PERB Order No.•Ad-
151-S.) Notwithstanding that the Association is not required to demonstrate any actual impact
on employee free choice, the Petitioners have indeed conceded that they" ... saw this [letter]
as an opportunity to educate our staff' and as providing "information so that certificated [staff]
make[] educated decisions about the school." (Petitioners's Response, ,r 2.) It appears that
some employees have indeed relied on the information provided by Jiminez, a person of
authority at bnagine Schools, as accurate and educational "statements of fact," even though
CT A's dues are not as high as Jiminez represented. If employees believe Jimenez's statements
to be accurate and have already relied on this information to make an "educated decision,"
such misinformation would prevent employee free choice.

DETERMINATION
Based on the facts, conclusions oflaw and the entire record herein, the Association's
request to stay the election process in the instant matter is GRANTED. It is hereby
'
ORDERED that Case No. LA-DP-406-M be placed in abeyance pending the resolution of
Imagine Educators Association v. Imagine Schools at Imperial Valley, unfair practice charge
Case No. LA-CE-6062-E.
,Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB ReguJations, an aggrieved party m!ty file an appeal directly with the
Board itself and can request an expedited review of this administrative determination. (Cal,
Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32147, subd. (a), 32350, 32360, 32802, 61060.) An appeal must be filed
with the Board itself within 10 days following the date of service of this determination. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32360, subd. (b).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the
case name and number, and the original and five (5) copies of all documents must be provided
to the Board. (Ibid.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,§
11020, subd. (a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile
transmission before the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements of PERB Regulation 3213 5(d), provided the filing party also
places the original, together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the
U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, §§ 32090 and 32130.)
19

The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322w8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If an aggrieved party appeals this determination, any other party may file with the Board an
original and five copies of a statement in opposition within 10 calendar days following the date
of service of the appeal. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32375.)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to
the proceeding and on the Sacramento regional office. A ··proofof service" must accompany
each copy of a document served upon a party or filed with the Board itself (see Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, § 32140 for the required contents). The document will be considered properly
"served" when personally delivered or deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery
service and properly addressed. A document may also be concurrently served via facsimile
transmission on all parties to the proceeding. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32135, subd. (c),)
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time in which to file an appeal or opposition to an appeal .
with the Board itself must be in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted
address. A request for an extension must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the
expiration of the time required for filing the document. The request must indicate good cause
for and, if known, the p9sition of each other party regarding the extension, and shall be
accompanied by proof of service of the request upon each party (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8,
§ 32132)
20