EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES – In General; Standards

Single Topic for Decision 3048M

View all topics for Decision 3048M

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

To establish a prima facie interference case, the facts must show that a respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to protected rights. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 36 (San Diego).) A charging party need not show that the respondent acted because of an unlawful motive. (Claremont Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2654, p. 20.) If a charging party union or employee establishes a prima facie interference case, the burden shifts to the employer. (San Diego, supra, PERB Decision No. 2747 M, p. 36.) The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (Ibid.) If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, the employer 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 not inherently destructive, the employer may attempt to justify its actions based on operational necessity. (Ibid.) In such cases, PERB balances the asserted business need against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, PERB finds 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 business 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 pp. 36-37, fn. 19.) (pp. 5-6.)