Oak Grove Educators Ass'n, CTA/NEA v. Oak Grove School District

10 P.E.R.C. ¶ 17, 134 (1986)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Oak Grove Educators Ass'n, CTA/NEA v. Oak Grove School District

California Public Employment Relations Board
10 P.E.R.C. ¶ 17, 134 (1986)

  • Written by Mike Begovic, JD

Facts

California’s Educational Employment Relations Act (the act) prevented a public-school employer from dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of an employee organization, contributing support to it, and encouraging employees to join any organization to the exclusion of another. The Oak Grove School District (the district) (defendant) hired a superintendent, Robert Lindstrom, who formed a roundtable-discussion group for teachers. This was done at the request of teachers and in continuance of the predecessor’s practice. Believing it would enhance communication and provide teachers with an opportunity to express concerns, Lindstrom told each school to send one representative to the monthly meetings. The teachers’ union, Oak Grove Educator’s Association (the union) (plaintiff), was not asked to send an official representative, although some members of the roundtable group were also members of the union. The meetings took place during work hours. Members of the roundtable group could call the superintendent’s office and suggest items for the agenda, which would be finalized at the superintendent’s office. Attendees would report back to colleagues after meetings. Lindstrom attempted to walk a fine line so that issues being negotiated with the union were not discussed at meetings, but on occasion these topics would come up. No official resolutions or agreements were formed at the meetings. These matters included overloaded classrooms and class size, the amount of time teachers worked without a break, and a staff incentive-award program. Lindstrom often noted during the meetings that these issues were the subject of ongoing negotiations with the union and could not be discussed further. Testimony from various teachers suggested that the roundtable forum came to be viewed as a better avenue to express concerns and address certain issues. Attendance at union meetings eventually dropped by half. The union sued, contending that the district’s roundtable forum constituted an employee organization that the district dominated in violation of the act.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Burt, J.)

Dissent (Hesse, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership