All notes for Subtopic 301.05000 – Intermittent
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I062H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119) 301.05000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; STRIKES, SLOWDOWNS AND WORK STOPPAGES; Intermittent Like any type of protected concerted activity, strikes require a certain degree of coordination to be successful. That degree necessarily increases when unions commit to giving the employer advanced notice of their intent to strike, as occurred here. The Board could not understand the University’s charge to have alleged that any and all such coordination was evidence of an unlawful pressure tactic because such an assertion would undermine the very possibility of concerted activities like sympathy strikes, which are clearly protected under PERB law. (p. 7, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 94 | 11/07/19 |
| I062H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119) 301.05000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; STRIKES, SLOWDOWNS AND WORK STOPPAGES; Intermittent The Board relied on facts developed in the General Counsel’s investigation of the University’s injunction request and supporting unfair practice charges to assess the existence of reasonable cause. In doing so, the Board found no pattern of conduct that it believed constituted an unlawful pressure tactic. First, the first three strikes were called by different bargaining units, with the remainder choosing to give notice of their intent to respect the primary picket line and strike in sympathy. Second, the two most recent of these strikes were preceded by the filing of various unfair practice charges. There is no question that a strike provoked by an employer’s unfair labor practices is protected at any time it occurs during the negotiating process. Indeed work stoppages that respond to distinct employer actions or issues, even if close in time, are simply not pursuant to a plan to strike intermittently for a single goal, and are therefore protected. Third, the Unions gave ample notice of their intent to strike, thus enabling the University to prepare continuity plans well in advance of each walkout. Finally, a significant period of time elapsed between each strike, indicating again that the Unions did not intend to pick and choose when to work without any regard for the safe and efficient operation of the workplace. (pp. 7-9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 94 | 11/07/19 |
| I062H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119) 301.05000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; STRIKES, SLOWDOWNS AND WORK STOPPAGES; Intermittent The Board found that the record of five short-duration strikes over the course of one year did not provide reasonable cause to believe the Unions’ presumptively protected activities were unlawfully intermittent because the walkouts were: (1) called by different bargaining units, with others going out in sympathy; (2) in part precipitated or provoked by a public employer’s alleged unfair conduct; (3) preceded by a notice period of sufficient length to permit the University to prepare for continued operations during the strike; and (4) separated by variable intervals of time sufficient to dispel the notion that the Unions planned their activities in advance or embarked on a coordinated strategy of rolling economic strikes. While the presence of any of these indicia may be sufficient to rebut an intermittent strike allegation, insofar as the Unions’ strikes presented all four, there was no reasonable cause to believe their activities were unlawful. Finally, even if there was reasonable cause to believe an unfair practice occurred, the University’s contention that these strikes would cause disproportionate economic harm did not demonstrate that an injunction would be just and proper. (pp. 2-3.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 94 | 11/07/19 |
| I054E | Fremont Unified School District 301.05000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; STRIKES, SLOWDOWNS AND WORK STOPPAGES; Intermittent Board held that post-impasse intermittent strike is both unprotected and unlawful under EERA; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21107 | 05/15/90 |
| I046E | San Ramon Valley Unified School District 301.05000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; STRIKES, SLOWDOWNS AND WORK STOPPAGES; Intermittent Intermittent or partial strikes are to be distinguished from strikes of short duration, where employees are not attempting to work and strike at the same time; p. 12. Board finds that intermittent nature of strike states a prima facie violation of EERA and should proceed to a hearing. Board finds no reasonable cause warranting extraordinary relief; p. 13. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15187 | 10/12/84 |