EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES – Free Speech

Single Topic for Decision 2856M

View all topics for Decision 2856M

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

The MMBA gives employers the right to express even unflattering views on a union’s actions so long as the statements did not include any threats of reprisal or promises of benefit. (See City of Oakland (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, pp. 25-26.) That some employees felt a Board of Trustees member belittled protected activities by labeling them as “political theater” did not convert that phrase into a threat or promise. But his direct statement that protected activity is “not acceptable [in] a time of crisis” sent a different message, one that was not confined to opinion. An employee could reasonably infer that he or she would be punished for engaging in the types of actions which the Board of Trustees member labeled “not acceptable.” That is because a reasonable employee would understand “not acceptable” to mean disallowed or prohibited. While the Board of Trustees member did not state explicitly that employees would be punished, his use of the phrase “not acceptable” was sufficiently coercive to fall outside the safe harbor for free speech. (pp. 35-36.)