EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES – Business Necessity

Single Topic for Decision 2822E

View all topics for Decision 2822E

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

The questions asked of the union president were broad in scope and not narrowly tailored to the allegations in the statement of charges or the union president’s involvement in the bargaining unit member’s defenses, particularly regarding the claims of retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions and requesting accommodations. If the District had narrowly tailored its questions to the union president’s involvement in co-authoring a complaint, the personal observations of the bargaining unit member’s misconduct, or the involvement in securing accommodations for the bargaining unit member, the District’s interest in obtaining that information may have outweighed the harm to protected rights. The District failed to show it narrowly tailored its actions to attain an important purpose while limiting harm to protected rights to the extent possible. With regard to most of the questions, the questions were not narrowly tailored and District’s need for the answers does not outweigh the employees’ strong interest in confidentiality.