UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2782M


View all topics for Decision 2782M

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

801.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION
801.01000 – In General

MMBA Section 3502 protects employee rights to form, join, and participate in union activities, or to refrain from doing so, and MMBA Section 3506 prohibits interference with such employee rights. To establish a prima facie interference case, a charging party must show that a respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to union and/or employee rights protected under the statutes we enforce. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 36.) A charging party normally need not establish that the respondent held an unlawful motive. (Ibid.) Once a charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent. (Ibid.) The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (Ibid.) If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, the respondent must show that the interference results from circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. (Ibid.) For conduct that is harmful but not inherently destructive, the respondent may attempt to justify its actions based on operational necessity. (Ibid.) In such cases, we balance the asserted need against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, we find a violation. (Ibid.) Within the category of actions or rules that are not inherently destructive, the stronger the tendency to harm, the greater is the respondent’s burden to show its need was important and that it narrowly tailored its actions or rules to attain that purpose while limiting harm to protected rights as much as possible. (Id. at p. 36, fn. 19.)