EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES – Business Necessity

Single Topic for Decision 3048M

View all topics for Decision 3048M

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

Where charging party alleged facts amounting to a prima facie case of surveillance or the appearance of surveillance of picketing activity, the respondent can contest charging party’s factual allegations at the formal hearing. The respondent can also present evidence that it had a legitimate business need outweighing the tendency to harm protected rights, and that it narrowly tailored its conduct to that business need while limiting harm to protected rights as much as possible. (Palomar Health (2024) PERB Decision No. 2895-M, pp. 42-48; County of San Bernardino (2018) PERB Decision No. 2556-M, pp. 20-23.) (pp. 6-7.)