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

409.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES
409.01000 – Business Necessity

The Board rejected the Court’s argument that it could not be found liable for an overly broad ban on distribution in mixed-use areas because it had never enforced its rule to restrict protected activity during non-duty time. Under the decades-old Carlsbad standard, a prima facie interference violation is established if the employer’s conduct, including its promulgation or maintenance of a rule, tends to or does result in harm to employee rights. (p. 31.) Even absent enforcement, the promulgation or maintenance of an employer rule may interfere with protected rights because its ambiguity creates the reasonable possibility of a broad interpretation in the future that would produce a chilling effect on protected activity. (Ibid.)