EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES – Business Necessity

Single Topic for Decision 2517C

View all topics for Decision 2517C

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

* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *

The Board found lawful a personnel rule prohibiting distribution on “working time,” where that term was defined, in relevant part, as “the working time of both the employee doing the … distributing and the employee to whom the … [literature] is being directed.” PERB and NLRB precedents recognize that “Working time is for work” and an employer rule that relies on that term, without further specification, is in facial compliance with the law. PERB rejected the charging party’s exception that, by specifying some but not all exceptions, the rule was ambiguous and susceptible to an overly broad reading. An employer rule that identifies some, but not all exceptions to the term “working time” is not per se unlawful and there was no evidence that this portion of the rule was enforced in an overly broad manner. (pp. 26-27.)