EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE; RESTRAINT, COERCION; SURVEILLANCE – Taking Photographs or Motion Pictures

Single Topic for Decision 3048M

View all topics for Decision 3048M

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

Surveillance of protected activity, as well as the appearance of such surveillance, constitutes conduct that tends to chill the exercise of protected rights. (Palomar Health (2024) PERB Decision No. 2895-M, pp. 43-48 (Palomar); County of San Bernardino (2018) PERB Decision No. 2556-M, pp. 20-21 (San Bernardino).) Accordingly, a charging party pleads a valid prima facie case of interference by alleging that an employer’s agent has gone beyond merely observing open, public protected activity near the employer’s property and instead has: (a) photographed, video recorded, or engaged in other recordkeeping of protected activities, or (b) created the appearance of such conduct. (Palomar, supra, pp. 43-48; San Bernardino, supra, pp. 20-21.) (p. 6.)