All notes for Subtopic 300.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2495E | Walnut Valley Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General The right to “form, join, and participate” in union activities includes protesting a management directive regarding educational policy, curriculum issues, or other matter of obvious collective concern. Employee need not know the concerns of, or attempt to enlist, other employees. If the employee is covered by EERA and raises a concern about a matter that is implicitly part of the employment relationship, then the conduct also falls within the right of self-representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 34 | 06/30/16 |
| 2704H | Regents of the University of California 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General PERB precedent protects employees’ attempts to assert contractual rights, but not if those efforts are fraudulent. If the University had evidence of a truly fraudulent claim, rather than a stark disagreement in how to interpret the relevant contract and policy language, the outcome here would be different. (p. 39, fn. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 158 | 04/14/20 |
| 2736M | City of Santa Maria 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General A communication is presumptively protected under the MMBA if its central purpose is to apprise others of a workplace dispute and to enlist their support. Here, the union used its statewide federation to communicate with firefighters in other departments and dissuade them from applying for a fire captain position because the union believed the city’s decision to open the recruitment to outside candidates violated the MMBA. (Page 26.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 17 | 06/30/20 |
| 2712M | City and County of San Francisco 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Union alleged that employee engaged in protected activity by serving as union chapter president, e-mailing employer regarding health and safety concerns, e-mailing employer to document an account of harassment and discrimination, requesting and receiving release time for bargaining training, seeking union assistance for a recruitment process, seeking to meet and confer with the employer over a job reclassification and its effects, and participating in successor contract negotiations between the union and the employer. (p. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 173 | 05/06/20 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General An exclusive representative has a right to engage in direct and indirect advocacy with an employer’s elected and unelected officials, up to and including the employer’s highest levels, provided that the exclusive representative does not make new collective bargaining proposals that the exclusive representative has not already made in negotiations with the employer’s chosen bargaining team. (Anaheim Union High School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2434, pp. 52-53; Westminster School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 277, p. 10; San Ramon Valley Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 230, pp. 16-18.) Union representative’s e-mails to County’s Board of Supervisors were protected advocacy and not impermissible direct dealing, where Union representative’s e-mails did not present any proposals that the Union had not already made in negotiations or advocate for contract terms differing materially from previous Union proposals. (PARTIALLY OVERRULING County of Inyo (2005) PERB Decision No. 1783-M, to extent it found that union engaged in direct dealing during a presentation to the employer’s board where there was no allegation that the union made new proposals from those union sought in bargaining during the presentation.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2654E | Claremont Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General EERA section 3543 protects employees’ “right to communicate with co-workers about working conditions.” (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 24 | 07/10/19 |
| 2612M | County of Lassen 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Employer unlawfully decided to terminate probationary employee, rather than temporarily reclassify her until she met established qualifications, after employee’s union intervened on her behalf. An employer need not always continue employing an employee who does not meet established qualifications. However, where there is a means to continue employing the employee, the employer may not refrain from doing so, nor cancel a plan to do so, merely because the employee’s union raises questions or otherwise seeks to represent the employee. Such conduct is quintessential retaliation for protected activity and interference with protected rights. (Regents of the University of California (UC Davis Medical Center) (2013) PERB Decision No. 2314-H, pp. 11, 14 [employer notified employee of his options regarding involuntary schedule change, employee sought union’s assistance, and employer then offered inferior options]; Berkeley Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1538, pp. 4-5 [even where employer had discretion whether to grant scheduling waivers to employees, it could not discontinue granting waivers in response to protected activity].)(p. 6.) An employer may not take adverse action merely because it is perplexed as to how to respond to a union’s advocacy. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 102 | 12/19/18 |
| 2613M | County of Santa Clara 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General There is no more fundamental right afforded employees under the statutory scheme than the right to communicate with others about working conditions, which include the circumstances underlying and surrounding an investigation into alleged employee misconduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 104 | 12/21/18 |
| 2599E | San Bernardino Community College District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General The refusal to obey a rule or directive that unlawfully infringes on employee or union rights is generally protected. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 85 | 12/05/18 |
| 2563E | Napa Valley Community College District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General The right to “form, join, and participate” in employee organization activity is not textually limited to those activities sanctioned by the exclusive representative. Additionally, the Board has long held that this right extends to participation in group activity—or actions that are the logical continuation of group activity—not merely employee organization activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 154 | 05/25/18 |
| 2522H | Trustees of the California State University 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Probationary employee’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of fellow employee’s complaint against allegedly abusive supervisor was protected activity, regardless of whether the complaint procedure was administrative or collectively-bargained. Individual employee activity aimed at providing mutual aid or protection to a coworker is statutorily protected, notwithstanding its informal and spontaneous nature. (p. 17.) If individual employees are not free to act together informally and spontaneously to provide mutual aid or protection to one another, then it is unlikely that they may ever exercise their right to form or join, much less to participate in the activities of, an employee organization, a right expressly guaranteed by the PERB statutes. (p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H | Trustees of the California State University 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H | Trustees of the California State University 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General The statutory term “employment relations” is broad enough to include an employer’s administrative or non-collectively bargained remedies. Because the statutory rights of an exclusive representative to represent employees extends to an employer’s non-collectively bargained complaint resolution procedures, employees who are represented by the exclusive representative in a non-collectively bargained complaint procedure are engaged in the protected activity of participating in the activities of an employee organization, regardless of the personal or individual nature of the complaint. (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H | Trustees of the California State University 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General While an individual employee’s complaint that is “entirely personal in nature and not an extension of concerted action” is unprotected, employee’s complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor falls squarely within the ambit of “employer-employee relations” because it affects workplace safety and freedom from a hostile work environment. Employee activity directed against a supervisor’s conduct or performance is protected when its purpose is to further a legitimate interest in the employees’ working conditions or when the supervisor’s conduct affects collective working conditions. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H | Trustees of the California State University 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General By alleging that the exclusive representative represented employee in her administrative complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor, the charge included sufficient facts to demonstrate that the complaining employee, and by extension a fellow employee who agreed to appear as a witness in support of the complaint, had “participate[d] in the activities of [an] employee organization[] of their own choosing for the purpose of representation” on a matter of employer-employee relations. (pp. 11-12.) Whether an employee’s complaint is presented in a collectively -bargained grievance procedure is not necessarily determinative of whether it is protected activity, because, by virtue of the exclusive representatives’ involvement, the employee was participating in the activities of an employee organization, conduct expressly protected by HEERA section 3565. Fellow employee’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of the administrative complaint was likewise protected participation in an employee organization’s activity, regardless of the nature of the proceedings in which the complaint was presented. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2517C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *Under the PERB-administered statutes, the organizational right of access to the workplace is presumed and the burden is on the employer to establish that its regulation is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to prevent disruption of operations. PERB has long held that wearing union clothing, buttons or pins in the workplace is protected, absent a showing of special circumstances to justify the restriction. (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2536M | City and County of San Francisco 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Despite differences in wording, the MMBA’s protection of the right to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations for the purposes of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations encompasses the same rights as section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 14 | 06/30/17 |
| 2458E | Jurupa Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Obtaining assistance from a Union attorney regarding an employment issue is protected activity, as is obtaining assistance from exclusive representative regarding charging party’s performance evaluation. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 75 | 10/23/15 |
| 2452E | Hartnell Community College District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Charging party’s request to be represented in investigative proceedings by someone other than a representative of the exclusive representative was not protected by EERA.) An employee’s threat to seek legal assistance from the Union or to file his or her own charge with PERB is protected, so long as made in good faith. The statutory protection does not depend upon the merits of the threatened charge or legal action. Employee’s threat, made to high-ranking human resources official, to file a charge with PERB is employee’s rights were not respected protected by EERA. p. 39. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 56 | 09/04/15 |
| 2418M | Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General The right to strike is fundamental to the statutory scheme of collective bargaining between equal partners. In the absence of some means of equalizing the parties’ respective bargaining positions, such as a credible strike threat, both sides are less likely to bargain in good faith, which, in turn, leads to unsatisfactory and acrimonious labor relations and ironically to more and longer strikes. Strikes by public employees are not illegal, unless statutorily prohibited, or unless there has been a clear showing that the strike poses a substantial and imminent threat to public health and safety. “[W]hile not absolute, the right to strike falls within the statutorily-protected right of public-sector employees to participate in union activities.” An employer may not unilaterally impose terms that waive or limit this right. The Board overruled Compton Unified School District (1987) PERB Order No. IR-50 to the extent that it holds there is no statutory right to strike in protest of an employer’s unfair practices. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 133 | 03/30/15 |
| I057M | City of Fremont 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General MMBA section 3503 vests public employees with the right to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations for the purpose of representation on employment matters, as well as the right to refrain from engaging in those activities. It is unlawful for a public agency to impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 68 | 10/25/13 |
| 2449E | Rio School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Comments during governing board meetings pertaining to both the financial status of the employer and the quality of the employer’s education programs constitute protected activity. Comments about the quality of the union’s representation in negotiations constitute protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 45 | 08/31/15 |
| 2361M | County of Merced 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Reporting safety concerns to an exclusive representative is protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 140 | 03/25/14 |
| 2342E | Coachella Valley Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Both the record of hearing and charging party’s unfair practice charge, as amended, support his contention that his reports concerned teacher (co-worker) misconduct, not student misconduct, during standardized testing. We conclude that charging party’s conduct in reporting cheating by teachers is not protected conduct under EERA. PERB’s jurisdiction is limited to the determination of unfair practices arising under EERA and the other public sector labor statutes which we administer. Whistleblowing in California K-12 public schools is protected under section 44100 et seq., of the Education Code. It is well established under PERB precedent that we do not have jurisdiction to enforce the Whistleblower Act or pure Education Code violations. Charging party’s reporting of alleged cheating by teachers did not seek to enforce employee workplace rights or rights stated in the CBA. Thus, it is not protected under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 95 | 12/09/13 |
| 2381E | Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Neither of charging party’s e-mails was part of a collectively bargained for grievance procedure, addressed the collective concerns of the bargaining unit, nor sought to enforce rights stated in the CBA. The correspondence concerned complaints about charging party’s behavior and his defense of his behavior was undertaken alone and for his sole benefit. Because the e-mail did not refer to a grievance, did not appear to address a contract violation and was not on the grievance form required under the collective bargaining agreement, the “tangential reference” in the e-mail to the union president was insufficient to provide a connection to any collective concerns of the bargaining unit. Charging Party’s e-mail concerns an issue undertaken by himself and for his sole benefit. As such, it is not a “logical continuation of group activity” and is not protected under EERA. Absent any demonstration that charging party and co-worker had a right to a key to the multi-purpose room (MPR) under the collective bargaining agreement or that their hours of employment were altered because of the principal’s key system, charging party has failed to demonstrate that his request for his and co-worker’s own keys to the MPR was EERA protected conduct. Because charging party has not shown that he and his co-worker had a statutory right to a key, we distinguish this case from those where employees jointly prosecute alleged violations of workplace rights that are not contained in the collective bargaining agreement, but contained in external law. We disagree with charging party that the Office of the General Counsel determined that his e-mails were not protected, because of their number and tone. The dismissal letter clearly points out that the e-mails in question lack EERA protection, because they were not undertaken as group activity or a logical continuation thereof. The dismissal letter merely points out that the Monterey County Superior Court found that the number and tone of charging party’s e-mail communications were sufficient to form the basis for dismissal on the grounds of persistent refusal to obey school laws or regulations, a basis for dismissal under the Education Code, not EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 12 | 06/27/14 |
| 2285S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by by Trustees of the California State University (Northridge) (2019) PERB Decision No. 2687-H 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Trustees of the California State University (Northridge) (2019) PERB Decision No. 2687-H. * * *An employee organization’s ability to independently investigate a potential grievance is an essential tool for determining whether the grievance has merit and, if it does, for providing effective representation in grievance proceedings. Therefore, the investigation of grievances is protected organizational activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 72 | 09/17/12 |
| 2217H | Regents of the University of California 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Supervisory employees have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of supervisory employee-employer relations as set forth in HEERA section 3581.3. Supervisory employees also have the right to refuse to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations and shall have the right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 79 | 11/09/11 |
| 2211M | City of Santa Monica 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Use of union to file grievance is protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 66 | 10/24/11 |
| 2155M | County of Orange * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Santa Clara Valley Water District (2013) Decision No. 2349- M 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Santa Clara Valley Water District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2349-M, where the Board held that an employee’s status as a union official is enough by itself to constitute protected activity. * * *Merely holding the position of union president, without evidence that the employee actually engaged in specific protected acts, is insufficient to establish protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 24 | 01/18/11 |
| 2147E | Fontana Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General PERB has consistently held that filing complaints with outside agencies and regarding issues such as race or gender based discrimination does not qualify as protected activity. This is because outside agencies often have rules and regulations in place to prevent unlawful retaliation for filing complaint and because PERB does lacks the authority to address race or gender based discrimination claims. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 10 | 12/10/10 |
| 2184M | County of Riverside 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Seeking the assistance of the exclusive representative in connection with a workplace issue is protected activity. An employee’s request for representation during a meeting with management is also protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 2 | 06/07/11 |
| 2106Sa | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C. * * *Becoming a union member is a protected activity for purposes of determining whether an employer interfered with employee rights under the Carlsbad standard or discriminated against employees under the Campbell standard. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 59 | 03/01/11 |
| 2161M | City of Alhambra 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Under the MMBA’s right of self-representation, individual employee complaints to the employer are protected only when they are a logical continuation of group activity and are not undertaken solely for the employee’s benefit. Employee’s complaints during staff meeting that his supervisor worked employees too hard were not protected because they expressed his personal dislike of the supervisor’s management style and were not connected to group activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 36 | 02/08/11 |
| 2126E | Grossmont Union High School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General School district employee engaged in protected activity by sending a letter to the principal accusing the principal of failing to comply with the applicable collective bargaining agreement and requesting union representation during a meeting with district management. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 121 | 08/13/10 |
| 2123S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General The charge and supporting documents do not indicate that union members engaged in any specific protected activity other than their union membership. Allegations that public employee unions generally opposed the Governor’s reelection and initiative campaigns fails to establish that union engaged in any identifiable protected activity or that the state employer had knowledge of any such activity by the union. Charging party was one of many public sector labor organizations engaging in such activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 117 | 07/28/10 |
| 2118S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Although certain communications with an employer taken on behalf of unit employees may be considered protected activity, an employee’s communication with the employer is for his/her own benefit is not protected. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 102 | 06/15/10 |
| 2086E | Garden Grove Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Employee’s complaints to her supervisor about after-hours bathroom and facility access and safety issues related to student discipline were protected activity under EERA’s protected right of self-representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 25 | 12/28/09 |
| 2069H | State Employees Trades Council United (Ventura, et al.) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General HEERA protects employees' rights to either participate in the activities of employee organizations or to refrain from participating in such activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 168 | 10/05/09 |
| 2030M | Omnitrans 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Access of employer’s premises by union officer for purpose of communicating with employees is protected activity, provided officer’s conduct complies with reasonable time and place regulations adopted by employer. Employer’s access regulation was unreasonable as applied to drivers’ assembly room because it prohibited union activity in a non-work area during non-working time without a legitimate business reason for doing so. Thus, union officer’s use of assembly room to discuss union matters with individual employees was protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 91 | 05/29/09 |
| 2038H | Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Visalia Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2806 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Visalia Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2806, where the Board held that an employee’s status as a union official is enough by itself to constitute protected activity under all statutes that PERB enforces. * * *Representing an employee in a grievance proceeding and filing a grievance on one’s own behalf are protected activities. Merely holding the position of union steward, without evidence that the employee actually engaged in specific protected acts, is insufficient to constitute protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 106 | 06/11/09 |
| 2007E | Torrance Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because it did not allege that charging party engaged in any activity protected by EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 51 | 03/09/09 |
| 1979C | Los Angeles County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563, where the Board held that employees who have access to an employer’s e-mail system as part of their job duties have a right to use that system to engage in EERA-protected communications on nonwork time. * * *An e-mail about union matters is protected activity only if it falls within the range of permissible non-business use under the employer’s e-mail use policy. Employee’s union e-mails to entire countywide bargaining unit were not protected activity because employer policy prohibited broadcast e-mails. Employee’s union e-mail to group of 55 unit members in the same courthouse was protected activity because it fell within the range of non-business e-mail use allowed by the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 151 | 10/07/08 |
| 1980E | San Mateo County Community College District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Employee’s inclusion of a union representative in a meeting with his supervisor over performance issues and e-mails from a union representative to the employer on the employee’s behalf regarding cancellation of the employee’s teaching assignment were protected activities under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 153 | 10/17/08 |
| 1975M | County of Merced 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Employee’s use of union representation in dispute with employer over proposed suspension of employee was protected activity under MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 137 | 09/05/08 |
| 1971M | City of Torrance 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Union president’s active role in union’s election campaign against successful mayoral candidate, including questions asked at city council meeting pursuant to a vote of the union’s membership and governing board, and writing a letter to the editor in the local newspaper that identified her as the union president, constituted protected activity because the union’s election campaign was a matter of employer-employee relations. Union president’s letter to the editor and recorded phone call critical of the successful mayoral candidate that identified the president only as a city employee were not protected activity because they were not part of the union’s election campaign and did not concern matters of employer-employee relations. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 126 | 08/21/08 |
| 1961S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Submitting a bid on work assignments pursuant to a post and bid procedure contained in an agreement between the State employer and the exclusive representative is not protected activity under the Dills Act. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 101 | 06/17/08 |
| 1843H | Regents of the University of California 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Charging party failed to describe the employee’s protected activity. It was not clear what was meant by “union contact” nor did the charge indicate when the employee filed her previous grievance.” more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 124 | 05/18/06 |
| 1849M | County of Santa Cruz 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General While it is clear that a doctor engaged in protected activities as an active officer of the Association, the charge fails to demonstrate the County laid him off because of his protected activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 151 | 08/16/06 |
| 1778E | Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General For purposes of establishing a prima facie case, CSEA has demonstrated that Tyner participated in protected activities by serving as the chapter president, participating on the bargaining committee and assisting in resolving grievances as the job steward. CSEA represented Tyner in matters involving her own working conditions. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 167 | 10/06/05 |
| 1791E | Los Angeles Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General While Kahn alleges that his refusal to hand over his log book was protected, refusal to comply with a supervisor’s directive, under these circumstances, is not protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 32 | 12/29/05 |
| 1732H | Trustees of the California State University 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Butte-Glenn Community College District (2022) PERB Decision 2834. * * * Board found no retaliation where charging party resigned and decision not to rehire was not based on previous protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 48 | 12/27/04 |
| 1664M | City and County of San Francisco 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Poon engaged in protected activity by her status as job steward and chapter president as well as leave time used to participate in union activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 231 | 07/27/04 |
| 1723S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Charging party was disciplined not for protected activity but instead for telling psych techs to go against written policy and act in a manner inconsistent with management directives. Telling employees to violate management directives is not protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 28 | 12/13/04 |
| 1725E | Hilmar Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Non-disruptive informational picketing is protected under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 35 | 12/15/04 |
| 1714E | Simi Valley Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General The teacher engaged in protected conduct in his role as Association site representative, representing coworkers in meetings with the school principal, challenging the proposed independent study program at staff meetings and by memo, discussions of the program with the Association, and participation in a meeting with management and Association representatives to resolve concerns about the program. Requests for representation in and of themselves are protected conduct. The teacher’s request for representation for a proposed meeting with the principle was therefore protected. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 19 | 11/29/04 |
| 1674E | Fresno County Office of Education 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General It is undisputed that Nolt and Allison, as Association officers and participation in representational activities, were engaged in protected activity from their responses to their supervisor’s questioning regarding the employee lounge incidents, the challenge to COE’s use of the Fund, their opposition to the superintendent’s candidacy, and their strong objections to COE’s proposal in negotiations, to their participation in the hearing over Fresno COE, in which both testified against the conduct of the superintendent and their supervisor and their resignation as Association officers to prevent the decertification effort. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 219 | 08/19/04 |
| 1690S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Request for a transfer does not constitute protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 254 | 09/17/04 |
| 1657E | Los Angeles Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Temporary teacher’s refusal to sign form that was valid condition of employment is not protected activity. Defense that he was following union advice does not raise conduct to level of protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 196 | 07/08/04 |
| 1617S | State of California 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Charge dismissed where charging party failed to establish any protected activity related to his discipline. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 131 | 04/16/04 |
| 1479S | California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Charging Party did not provide an adequate showing that participation in rallies, distributing literature, wearing union buttons or t-shirts impacted the employer-employee relationship sufficiently to support a finding of protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33065 | 05/02/02 |
| 1371E | Wilmar Union Elementary School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General The Board concluded that the display by an employee and the union of a large political campaign sign in the school parking lot was not EERA-protected conduct either as employee participation in an employee organization, or employee organization representation of employees; p. 18. Applying the Carlsbad analysis, the Board concludes that, by prohibiting Anderson and WTA from displaying the political campaign sign on school grounds, the District did not unlawfully interfere with Anderson's EERA-protected right to participate in an employee organization, or WTA's right to represent employees, and the allegations that it did so are dismissed; p. 23. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31053 | 02/09/00 |
| 1299S | State of California (Department of Industrial Relations) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Participation in protected activity does not insulate or immunize an employee against decisions made by the employer, including adverse employment actions citing Martori Brothers Distributors v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 721; pp. 11-12. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30012 | 11/02/98 |
| 1248E | Alisal Union Elementary School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Letter responding to discipline is exercise of employee's protected right to represent herself in her employment relations with the District; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29049 | 01/28/98 |
| 1246E | Oakdale Union Elementary School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Filing grievances and representing members of an employee organization constitute protected activity; p. 16. Reporting safety issues to third party constitutes participation in the activities of an employee organization and is protected by the EERA where that report is an extension of attempts to resolve safety issues through the Association and the District; p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29047 | 01/28/98 |
| 1232E | Chula Vista Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Visalia Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2806 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Although it is well established that representing members of an employee orgainzation constitutes protected activity, simply holding a union office, like maintaining union membership prior to the adverse action is insufficient to satisfy the timing element of the Novato test; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29012 | 11/19/97 |
| 1185E | Healdsburg Union High School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Filing grievances and serving on union negotiating team are protected activities; p. 47, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28055 | 02/24/97 |
| 1114E | Poway Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Employees' concerted refusal to attend back to school night activities was not protected activity, since teachers' attendance at back to school night was a mandatory term and condition of employment that was established and known to all through longstanding Board policy; discipline based on this activity is not discrimination; p. 3. Failure to enforce this rule in the past does not constitute a defense; p. 18, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26131 | 09/14/95 |
| 1037S | State of California (Department of General Services) (Chen) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Protected activity must be recent, conduct three years old will not be considered; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25042 | 02/11/94 |
| 0885E | San Diego Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Protected activity which occurs after the adverse action can not be used to establish a prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22103 | 06/14/91 |
| 0874E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Woods) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Employee meeting with union representative re: job related issues and requesting union representation when meeting with his supervisor are protected activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22069 | 04/10/91 |
| 0708E | Pleasant Valley School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2017) PERB Decision No. 2539-M 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General * * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Santa Clara (2017) PERB Decision No. 2539-M. * * *Employee's safety complaint constituted exercise of his right to represent himself in his employment relations with District and, therefore, was conduct expressly protected under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20016 | 12/21/88 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Right of employees under EERA section 3543, subdivision (a), to participate in activities of employee organizations does not include absolute right to attend negotiations between the exclusive representative and the public school employer. By enacting EERA section 3549.1, the Legislature intended that negotiations would be attended only by the parties’ designated representatives, absent an agreement or established practice to the contrary. pp. 29-34. Similar to union access and released time for employee representatives, PERB regards employee rights to communicate, solicit and distribute information at work as encompassing both statutory rights and negotiable matters. The statutory right of employees to be represented by employee organizations generally includes the right to communicate with one another about working conditions, to show allegiance to the organizations of their choice and to express solidarity with other employees for the purpose of representation or for other mutual aid or protection. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 23 | 06/30/16 |
| 1733E | California School Employees Association and Its Chapter 36 (Peterson) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Participation in classified senate (not an employee organization) is not protected. Consultation with employer officials about matters outside of scope of representation not protected. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 50 | 12/28/04 |
| 0324E | Central Union High School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Assisting in grievance filing - critical of superintendents decisions and service as assistant president is protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14189 | 06/30/83 |
| 0257S | State of California (Department of Transportation) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Employee criticism of a supervisor's performance constitutes protected activity when its purpose is to advance employees' interests in work- ing conditions, as opposed to merely being the result of a personal grudge. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14003 | 11/06/82 |
| 0228S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) (Monsoor) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Participation in an employee organization of tenant-employees constituted protected activity; employees were organized for the purpose of representation concerning a matter of employer-employee relations. "Representation concerning a matter of employer-employee relations" is not limited to those matters within the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13173 | 07/28/82 |
| 0983H | Regents of the University of California (Alavarez) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General The right to vote and to be consulted concerning the transfer of a classification to a new bargaining unit are not guaranteed by HEERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24063 | 03/22/93 |
| 0047E | Pittsburg Unified School District 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General No discrimination where employees suspended for breaking District rules unrelated to protected activity. Employees properly disciplined for offensive union leaflet where motivation was unrelated to protected activity itself but focused on nature of the leaflet. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2051 | 02/10/78 |
| 0949H | Regents of the University of California (Einheber) 300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General Employee who speaks critically of department management and goes to some effort to organize other employees to give similar feedback has engaged in protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23133 | 08/13/92 |