All notes for Subtopic 400.01000 – In General; Standards

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2699H Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Allowing a nonexclusive representative to assert the rights of employees it represents is particularly important during an organizing campaign, when individual employees may be unable or unwilling to file a charge, or they are unaware of their rights in the first place. A nonexclusive representative need not wait until it becomes the exclusive representative to allege employer interference with employee rights. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.
02/27/20
2699H Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Under HEERA, nonexclusive representatives, i.e., employee organizations not certified as exclusive representatives, have standing to allege violations of the rights of employees they represent. (p. 8.) Although HEERA does not grant them the independent right to represent employees, employees have a statutory right to representation by employee organizations of their own choosing. Nonexclusive representatives thus may assert employees’ rights on their behalf, including their rights to be free from discrimination, interference, or retaliation. (pp. 5-8.) more or view all topics or full text.
02/27/20
2687H Trustees of the California State University (Northridge)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
A prima facie case of interference is established by evidence that an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights under our statutes. (County of Santa Clara (2018) PERB Decision No. 2613-M, p. 8.) Once a charging party has established a prima facie case of interference, the burden shifts to the employer. (Ibid; County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2611-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 31; Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, pp. 10-11.) The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (County of Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2611-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 31.) Where the employer’s conduct causes or tends to cause only slight harm to protected rights, the employer may justify its actions based on “operational necessity,” and PERB will then balance the employer’s asserted interests against the harm to protected rights; if the harm to employee rights outweighs the asserted business justification, a violation will be found. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2613-M, p. 8.) On the other hand, if the harm is “inherently destructive of protected rights,” the employer must show that the interference was caused by circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text.
12/13/19
2634E San Diego Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
School district’s directive to teacher prohibiting teacher from discussing a pending investigation with any staff member constitutes interference because it can reasonably be construed as prohibiting protected activity, such as teacher’s right to speak to her coworkers about her working conditions. Directive causes at least slight harm to teacher’s protected rights under EERA and school district did not establish any operational necessity for its directive, and accordingly teacher established a prima facie case for interference. more or view all topics or full text.
4315603/22/19
2634E San Diego Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
In the area of employer rules and directives, PERB does not look favorably on broad, vague directives that might chill lawful speech or other protected conduct. (Los Angeles Community College District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2404, p. 6 (LACCD).) In LACCD, the employer placed an employee on leave while it initiated a fitness-for-duty examination. (Id. at p. 2.) In doing so, it issued the employee a letter that stated, “You are hereby directed not to contact any members of the faculty, staff or students.” (Ibid.) The Board held the directive interfered with the employee’s rights under EERA because it could reasonably be construed to prohibit the employee from participating in a variety of protected activities, including discussing his working conditions with his coworkers. (Id. at p. 9.) It further held the employer did not meet its burden to establish why the directive was necessary to preserve the integrity of its investigation. (Id. at p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text.
4315603/22/19
2634E San Diego Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
EERA section 3543 protects public school employees’ right to “form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations” in matters concerning employer employee relations. PERB’s interference test does not require evidence of unlawful motive, only that the employer conduct at issue has a tendency to create at least “slight harm” to employee rights. (Los Angeles Community College District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2404, p. 5; Simi Valley Unified School District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1714, p. 17.) To establish a prima facie case, the charging party must demonstrate that the employer’s conduct tends to or does result in harm to employee rights. (Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, p. 10 (Carlsbad).) If the prima facie case is established, PERB balances the degree of harm to protected rights against any legitimate business interest asserted by the employer. (Hilmar Unified School District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1725, p. 17, citing Carlsbad, supra, at pp. 10-11.) “Where the harm is slight, the Board will entertain a defense of operational necessity and then balance the competing interests.” (Ibid.) “Where the harm is inherently destructive [of protected rights], the employer must show the interference was caused by circumstances beyond its control.” (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text.
4315603/22/19
2632M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
The focus of an interference allegation is on the actual or reasonably likely harm of an employer’s conduct to the protected rights of employees, employee organizations, or both. The employer’s motive, intent or purpose is not part of a prima facie case of interference and issues regarding the employer’s subjective state of mind are only germane at all in an interference case where the employer has asserted as an affirmative defense that it acted in good faith for a bona fide business purpose, i.e., for determining whether the employer acted for the reason it has asserted. While the analysis differs depending upon the nature or severity of likely harm ascribed to the employer’s conduct, regardless of how one gets there, an interference violation will be found when the resulting harm to protected rights outweighs the business justification or other defense asserted by the employer. more or view all topics or full text.
4315003/07/19
2687H Trustees of the California State University (Northridge)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
A prima facie case of interference is established by evidence that an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights under our statutes. Once a charging party has established a prima facie case of interference, the burden shifts to the employer. The employer’s burden is dictated by the degree of harm involved. Where the employer’s conduct causes or tends to cause only slight harm to protected rights, the employer may justify its actions based on “operational necessity,” and PERB will then balance the employer’s asserted interests against the harm to protected rights; if the harm to employee rights outweighs the asserted business justification, a violation will be found. On the other hand, if the harm is “inherently destructive of protected rights,” the employer must show that the interference was caused by circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. (pp. 3-4.) more or view all topics or full text.
12/13/19
2654E Claremont Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Interference does not require evidence of unlawful motive, only that the employer conduct at issue tends to or does create at least slight harm to employee rights. If the prima facie case is established, PERB balances the degree of harm to protected rights against any legitimate and substantial business justification asserted by the employer. (p. 20, 22.) more or view all topics or full text.
07/10/19
2654E Claremont Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
In the area of employer rules and directives, PERB does not look favorably on broad, vague directives that might chill lawful speech or other protected conduct. (p. 20.) In cases involving broad no-contact directives, the employer bears the burden of proving the existence of an operational necessity for the directive as to that specific employee under the particular circumstances. (pp. 20-21.) The key to an appropriate directive is that it be tailored to the circumstances, particularly the unprotected conduct, at issue. (pp. 23-24.) A blanket prohibition on any communications with other District employees based on asserted concerns regarding harassment and intimidation is overbroad where the employee’s precipitating communication was neither harassing nor intimidating. (p. 23.) more or view all topics or full text.
07/10/19
2648M City of Arcadia
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Employees’ right to participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing includes the right to participate in selecting employee organization leaders. more or view all topics or full text.
06/12/19
2588E Los Angeles Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
To establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to rights granted under EERA. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text.
436310/17/18
2586E Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
To establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under EERA. The charging party need not suffer an adverse effect; rather, where employer conduct would reasonably tend to discourage protected activity, the likely chilling effect may, itself, constitute unlawful interference. more or view all topics or full text.
436009/28/18
2613M County of Santa Clara
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
A prima facie case of interference is established by allegations that an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights under our statutes. If the harm to protected rights is slight and the employer offers justification based on operational necessity, the competing interests are balanced. If the harm to employee rights outweighs the asserted business justification, a violation will be found. Where the employer’s conduct is inherently destructive of protected rights, it will be excused only on proof that it was caused by circumstances beyond the employer’s control and that no alternative course of action was available. more or view all topics or full text.
4310412/21/18
2602M City of Commerce
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
A prima facie case of interference may be stated without evidence that an employee has already engaged in protected activity, so long as the employer’s conduct has a tendency to deter future protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
438912/11/18
2602M City of Commerce
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Interference may be found without evidence that the respondent had a conniving or underhanded purpose, that any employees subjectively felt threatened or intimidated, or that employees were deterred from engaging in protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
438912/11/18
2595E William S. Hart Union High School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
A prima facie case of interference is established by allegations that an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights under our statutes. If the harm to protected rights is slight and the employer offers justification based on operational necessity, the competing interests are balanced. If the harm to employee rights outweighs the asserted business justification, a violation will be found. Where the employer’s conduct is inherently destructive of protected rights, it will be excused only on proof that it was caused by circumstances beyond the employer’s control and that no alternative course of action was available. more or view all topics or full text.
437411/09/18
2593H Regents of the University of California (Irvine)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
A prima facie case of interference will be found when the employer has engaged in conduct that tends to or does result in at least slight harm to rights guaranteed by the statute. The employer then has the burden of demonstrating operational necessity or circumstances beyond the employer’s control as justification for the conduct. The scrutiny with which the employer’s conduct will be examined depends on the severity of the harm. If the harm to protected rights is slight, a violation will be found unless the employer’s business justification outweighs the harm to protected rights. If the employer’s conduct is, instead, inherently destructive of protected rights, it will be excused only on proof that it was occasioned by circumstances beyond the employer’s control and that no alternative course of action was available. more or view all topics or full text.
436910/26/18
2556M County of San Bernardino
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
If the employer’s conduct interferes with protected conduct, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate justification for its conduct. The scrutiny with which the employer’s conduct will be examined depends on the severity of the harm. If the harm to employee rights is slight, a violation will be found unless the employer’s business justification outweighs the harm to employee rights. If the employer’s conduct is, instead, inherently destructive of employee rights, it will be excused only on proof that it was occasioned by circumstances beyond the employer’s control and that no alternative course of action was available. more or view all topics or full text.
4211403/06/18
2556M County of San Bernardino
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Employer’s state of mind, including lack of premeditation, is not relevant to whether a prima facie case of interference is established. more or view all topics or full text.
4211403/06/18
2566C Los Angeles County Superior Court
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
In cases arising under the MMBA and the Trial Court Act, the Board applies the test for interference from Public Employees Association of Tulare County, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Tulare County (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 797, although it is not clear that that case is inconsistent with Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89. more or view all topics or full text.
43106/12/18
2566C Los Angeles County Superior Court
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Side letter agreement providing that future hires would be in a represented classification and not charging parties’ unrepresented classification did not interfere with right to refrain from participating in activities of employee organization. Although agreement reduced the collective strength of charging parties’ classification, unrepresented employees have no right to meet and confer, and thus no right to protect the strength of their classification. more or view all topics or full text.
43106/12/18
2567E Hartnell Community College District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Having attempted for more than two weeks to schedule the investigative meeting with Charging Party and his preferred representative, the ALJ appropriately concluded that the employer was not obligated to further delay the meeting, and that a message from its human resources official lawfully deferred to the exclusive representative to determine which of its agents would be available to represent the Charging Party in the investigative meeting. The employer’s message did not interfere with the protected right to choose a representative because, under the circumstances, any choice of a representative was for the exclusive representative and not for the Charging Party to make. (p.8.) To prevail in a case alleging interference, the charging party must show that the employer engaged in conduct that tends to or does result in at least slight harm to rights guaranteed by EERA and that, on balance, the resulting harm to protected rights outweighs any legitimate business justification asserted by the employer. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text.
43206/12/18
2530E Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Respondent’s attorney’s statement that charging party would not be permitted to contact current or former employees of respondent as potential witnesses in an administrative hearing before the Commission on Teacher Credentialing was not an unlawful directive to an employee, but was more akin to a communication between opposing counsel. more or view all topics or full text.
42206/19/17
2530E Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
To be considered unlawful, a directive prohibiting employees from communicating with each other need not explicitly threaten discipline. more or view all topics or full text.
42206/19/17
2525M City of Livermore
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
City’s local rule requiring 60 percent support by affected employees for a proposed unit modification interferes with employees’ protected right to freely choose and be represented by an effective representative by a simple majority vote. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.
4117305/04/17
2522H Trustees of the California State University
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
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.
4115003/20/17
2536M City and County of San Francisco
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
A finding of interference, coercion or restraint does not require evidence of any ill will or unlawful motive on the part of the employer, or that any employee felt subjectively threatened or intimidated. more or view all topics or full text.
421406/30/17
2452E Hartnell Community College District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
An employer may freely express or disseminate its views, arguments or opinions on employment matters, unless such expression contains a threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. The safe harbor for employer speech does not apply, however, to advocacy on matters of employee choice such as urging employees to participate or refrain from participation in protected conduct, statements that disparage the collective bargaining process itself, implied threats, brinkmanship or deliberate exaggerations. The Board looks to the surrounding circumstances in which employer speech occurs, including the employer's power to control terms and conditions of employment and the economic dependence of employees on the employer, to determine whether, when viewed in context, employer speech conveys a threat of reprisal or force, a promise of benefit or a preference for one employee organization over another. p. 25. Although PERB’s test for employer interference requires a balancing of protected rights against the employer’s asserted justification of operational necessity, because, as noted above, during the initial investigation of a charge. PERB accepts the charging party's factual allegations as true, it is generally not appropriate to dismiss without a hearing interference allegations on the basis of an affirmative defense, such as an employer's right to free speech, unless the defense can be established as a matter of law. p. 25. Resolving factual disputes raised by the employer's affirmative defense should be considered in a formal hearing and not during the initial investigation into a charge or upon Board review of a dismissal/refusal to issue a complaint. p. 29. more or view all topics or full text.
405609/04/15
2453E Cabrillo Community College District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
A finding of interference, coercion or restraint does not require evidence that any employee subjectively felt threatened or intimidated or was in fact discouraged from participating in protected activity; rather the inquiry is an objective one which asks whether, under the circumstances, an employee would reasonably be discouraged from engaging in protected activity. If the harm to protected rights is slight and the employer offers justification based on operational necessity, the competing interests are balanced. If the harm to employee rights outweighs the asserted business justification, a violation will be found. Where the employer’s conduct is inherently destructive of protected rights, it will be excused only on proof that it was caused by circumstances beyond the employer’s control and that no alternative course of action was available. A charge of interference will be sustained where it is shown that the employer would not have engaged in the complained-of conduct but for an unlawful motivation, purpose or intent. more or view all topics or full text.
405709/17/15
2408H Trustees of the California State University (East Bay)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Failure by CSU to implement faculty hearing committee’s final and binding recommendation for a dean to issue a letter of apology to charging party as a resolution of a grievance harms charging party’s right to receive the remedy he was afforded pursuant to the grievance process. Five-month delay in CSU’s performing audit ordered by a faculty hearing committee’s final and binding recommendation as a resolution of a grievance was justified by the insufficient number of auditors facing multiple simultaneous audit requests and charging party’s failure to show that he was harmed by the delay. Charging party fails to demonstrate a prima facie case that slight harm was caused to his grievance rights, because CSU’s acceptance of the faculty hearing committee’s recommended decision to modify the university and college office hours policy was limited to the committee’s recommended decision itself. CSU produced more than an adequate business justification to support decision to have law enforcement present during grievance hearings and overcame any slight harm to charging party’s grievance rights, including its zero tolerance for violence policy, charging party’s previous threatening behavior, his suspension and termination therefore, charging party’s refusal to come to the CSU police station prior to the next grievance hearing, and charging party’s announcement that he would take some type of unspecified action if he saw police present. Liu has not demonstrated any harm that he was denied his grievance rights when CSU refused to convert a “contractual procedure” grievance to a “statutory procedure” grievance, as the parties did not stipulate to the change of the character of the grievance, and the governing CBA does not authorize such a change. more or view all topics or full text.
398701/13/15
I057M City of Fremont
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
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. The purposes of the MMBA are promoting full communication between public employers and employees and improving personnel management and employer-employee relations by recognizing the right of public employees to join organizations of their own choice and to be represented by these organizations in their employment relationship with public agencies. To achieve these purposes, in 1968 the Legislature established in the MMBA a system of collective bargaining and conferred on employees, employers and employee organizations particular rights and duties. Among those rights and duties are the right of employees to select their representative free of employer interference, and the right of the selected representative to engage the employer in collective negotiations over wages, hours and employment terms and conditions. more or view all topics or full text.
386810/25/13
2361M County of Merced
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Since unlawful motivation is not an element of an interference claim, the employer’s knowledge of whether or not it was interfering with employees’ rights under the MMBA is of no relevance. Whether or not commanders knew, or should have known, that they were interfering with rights protected under the MMBA is of no consequence to our analysis. Even the County’s version of what employee told commanders, together with the plain language of union attorney’s letter, were sufficient for the ALJ to determine that a reasonable person would conclude that the jail yard fight incident was the subject of an internal union discussion and the department’s repeated inquiry interfered with employee rights. Employer conduct which tends to chill reporting of concerns to union representatives interferes with employee and union rights. more or view all topics or full text.
3814003/25/14
2404E Los Angeles Community College District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
PERB does not look favorably on overbroad employer directives that employees would construe as prohibiting lawful speech or other protected activity; to prove interference, a charging party need not establish that the rule was promulgated in response to protected activity, that it expressly restricts protected activity or that it expressly threatens discipline; rather, the question is whether the employer rule would tend to chill employees in the exercise of their statutory rights; when given its reasonable meaning, considered in the context in which it was given and construed against the employer to the extent of any ambiguities, the employer’s directive not to contact faculty, staff or students in a letter stamped “confidential” would tend to chill employees in the exercise of protected activities including discussing concerns about working conditions with co-workers or pursing a grievance; while an employer may demand confidentiality in its investigations in certain circumstances, the burden is squarely on the employer to demonstrate that confidentiality is necessary to preserve the integrity of the investigation; an employer fails to establish its affirmative defense based on operational necessity where it routinely prohibits employees placed on administrative leave from talking about the substance of the investigation without justifying its desire for confidentiality. more or view all topics or full text.
398212/24/14
2283E Jurupa Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
A prima facie case of interference is established by allegations that an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights under our statutes. (Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89.) Employees have the right to engage in activities protected by EERA, viz., forming, joining and participating in activities of an employee organization for the purpose of representation. (EERA, § 3543.5(a).) Employer conduct which tends to or does result in some harm to an employee’s exercise of these rights interferes therewith in violation of the EERA. (EERA, § 3543.5(a).) Charging party alleges that a memo criticized those employees who, with charging party, had joined together to file through counsel a grievance and complaint seeking to enforce workplace rights. Such alleged conduct by the District’s assistant superintendent for personnel is attributable to the District. Employees reading the memo would understand the District to be hostile to their participation in activity protected by the EERA. We conclude this would result in at least some harm to employee rights. Thus, we conclude that the allegation states prima facie an instance of impermissible interference with employee rights. more or view all topics or full text.
08/21/12
2384H Trustees of the California State University
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
When considering allegations that an employer has interfered with employee rights, the well-meaning intent of the employer or of the individual supervisor in question is irrelevant. more or view all topics or full text.
391606/30/14
2285S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Both statement to union steward conducting union investigation into alleged misconduct by a supervisor for a potential grievance that she could find herself under investigation for impeding employer’s investigation and issuance of cease and desist order constituted at least “slight harm” to employee organizational rights. In balancing competing interests, interference with employee organizational rights outweighs business justification proffered by employer for its conduct. more or view all topics or full text.
09/17/12
2267M County of Santa Clara * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2479
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Employer’s counseling memo instructing employee to follow the chain of command and not to speak to other employees about his “issues and concerns” did not constitute unlawful interference or threat when considered in context. Evidence failed to demonstrate it was reasonably likely statements had a coercive tendency as to protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
05/25/12
2134H Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
In order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under EERA. When an interference charge is based on the employer’s failure to follow the parties’ MOU, the Board will dismiss the charge if the employer demonstrates that it did, in fact, follow the MOU. more or view all topics or full text.
3414110/01/10
2177H Regents of the University of California (Irvine) * * * Overruled by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision 2632-M
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
To establish a prima facie case of interference, the charging party must allege facts showing that the employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights. Employer’s payment of a bonus only to non-represented employees was not interference per se and charge failed to allege facts showing that the payment could harm employee rights in some way. Employer’s communications about the bonus via email and website did not constitute interference because they were not coercive. more or view all topics or full text.
357003/29/11
2106Sa State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
To establish a prima facie case of interference under Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, the charging party must establish that the employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights. The employer’s provision of lower cost dental benefits to non-union member employees established a prima facie case of interference with employee rights because the cost difference may influence an employee’s decision to join the union. more or view all topics or full text.
355903/01/11
2156S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Corcoran State Prison)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Charge failed to state a prima facie case of interference based on a meeting between union representatives and institution management to discuss bidding of new positions that the chapter president did not learn about until the following day. No interference with the chapter president’s rights because other chapter officers, not the employer, failed to inform the president of the meeting. No interference with the union’s rights because no facts alleged to show that the employer chose which union representatives would attend the meeting. more or view all topics or full text.
352601/19/11
2140H Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Charging party’s general allegation that the contractual grievance procedure “does not work” failed to establish that the employer interfered with employees’ right to file and pursue a grievance. more or view all topics or full text.
3416511/02/10
2123S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Assertion that physicians would prefer to be utilized as non-furloughed contractors rather than furloughed employees is insufficient to establish that the State’s decision to furlough its employees has interfered with the exercise of any protected activities. more or view all topics or full text.
3411707/28/10
2119M County of Riverside
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
County officials’ statements to union representatives that union’s efforts to organize the County’s temporary program employees would be futile interfered with union’s right to represent employees. Statements did not interfere with employee rights because they were made in private meetings at which no employees were present and record did not establish that statements were conveyed to any employee. County supervisors’ statements during public meeting that County would consider elimination of temporary employee program if union continued its efforts to organize temporary program employees interfered with employee and union rights by discouraging further organizing efforts. more or view all topics or full text.
3410806/24/10
2106S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) * * * VACATED by State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) PERB Decision No. 2106a-S
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Initially, the Board laid out a single test to establish a violation of both the interference and discrimination prohibitions. (See Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89.) Clearly, the Board was influenced by the standard set forth in NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers (1967) 388 U.S. 26. In Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, the Board clarified the separate standards of proof for interference and discrimination violations. No evidence established that the difference in dental benefit costs for union and non-union members resulted in actual harm to the rights of union members. more or view all topics or full text.
347904/30/10
2073E Los Angeles Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
To establish a prima facie case of interference, the charging party must allege facts establishing that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in harm to rights granted by EERA. No interference because EERA does not grant employees the right to a reasonable settlement offer or the right to have their grievances arbitrated. more or view all topics or full text.
3317810/28/09
2010M Omnitrans
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Under the MMBA, an exclusive representative has a basic statutory right to file grievances in its own name. Employer’s refusal to process grievance filed by union in its own name violated MMBA section 3503 and also unlawfully interfered with the rights of employees in violation of MMBA section 3506. more or view all topics or full text.
335403/10/09
2022M City of Modesto
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
City did not unlawfully deny right to representation during an interview to discuss complaint filed by employee, where employee did not reasonably believe that interview would result in discipline against him. City also did not deny right to representation during two coaching sessions to discuss employee’s work performance. more or view all topics or full text.
338405/12/09
2031M Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Roseville (2016) PERB Decision No. 2505-M
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Employer coercively threatened employees with layoff in violation of MMBA section 3506 when, after employees filed unit modification petition, employer told employees that there would be layoffs if they went with the union. more or view all topics or full text.
339205/29/09
2021E Alvord Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
No interference where Charging Party fails to show facts demonstrating harm to employee rights. In the absence of facts showing the employer’s actions in any way inhibited, or would tend to inhibit, the exercise of protected activity, allegations regarding the change to a teacher’s class assignment schedule and/or failure to provide certain educational resources, were not sufficient to show harm to employee rights. more or view all topics or full text.
337604/30/09
2005M County of San Diego
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Because MMBA does not grant an individual employee the right to attend labor/management meetings, employer did not interfere with employee’s rights by barring employee from labor/management meetings and refusing to process employee’s grievances over being barred from labor/management meetings. more or view all topics or full text.
334702/27/09
1986E Rio School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Reprimand of employee organization president for failure to provide district superintendent with information to support president’s allegations that school district improperly evaluated particular teachers did not interfere with president’s or employee organization’s protected rights because discipline for disobeying a direct order would not tend to chill president’s right to speak on issues of employer-employee relations. more or view all topics or full text.
33811/21/08
1971M City of Torrance
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Employer’s conduct in seeking reimbursement of release time and threatening discipline against union president and mayor’s expressions of union animus to union president interfered with union president and union’s protected rights under MMBA by discouraging president from continuing to serve as union officer. more or view all topics or full text.
3212608/21/08
1961S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
To establish a prima facie case of interference, the charging party must allege facts establishing that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in harm to rights granted by the Dills Act. No interference because the Dills Act does not grant the claimed right to participate in a contractual post and bid procedure. more or view all topics or full text.
3210106/17/08
1916M County of Imperial
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
In order to prove interference in violation of MMBA section 3506, a charging party must prove the following: (1) the charging party was engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer engaged in conduct which tends to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of that activity, and (3) the employer’s conduct was not justified by legitimate business reasons. In an election setting, the charging party need not prove evidence of actual coercion by the employer; rather, the charging party need only prove the employer’s conduct would reasonably tend to coerce or interfere with employee choice. more or view all topics or full text.
3112006/28/07
1912H Regents of the University of California
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
The University did not interfere with employees rights to union representation because the documents produced by the District indicated that the employee was informed of his right to have a representative present at the meeting as well as the University’s willingness to postpone the meeting in order to arrange representation. Additionally, the University permitted the employees to bring a representative of their choosing even though the University refused to recognize the representative as the exclusive representative. more or view all topics or full text.
3111706/26/07
1864S State of California (State Personnel Board)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
No interference where the Dills Act does not provide the claimed right. Specifically, the State Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for parties to negotiate a process whereby ad hoc arbitral boards review discipline, even if the decision, couched as a “settlement,” is submitted to the SPB after the fact. more or view all topics or full text.
311111/14/06
1840M County of Santa Cruz
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Two week delay in implementing dues deduction does not appear unreasonable and does not violate MMBA. Nothing indicates an attempt to interfere with union politics or sway favor away from exclusive representative. more or view all topics or full text.
3012205/17/06
1841M City of Fresno
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
No interference where union fails to show coercion or interference. City letter to employees does not indicate that layoffs will occur unless union signs contract with no salary increases. Survey of employees by City does not interfere with the union right to represent employees where it is at most an attempt to elicit information about overall job satisfaction. more or view all topics or full text.
3012605/18/06
1822E Santee Elementary School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Two unalleged violations of interference found. The language of the Board Policy, “or other strike related activities” interferes with employee rights because of its ambiguity, the possibility of a broad interpretation in the future, and its chilling effect on employees’ protected rights. The language of the administrative regulation which threatens to eliminate employee payroll deduction privileges per se interferes with employees’ rights under EERA unalleged violations may be found if intimately related to complaint, part of respondent’s same conduct, fully litigated at hearing with respondent having opportunity to examine and cross examine witnesses. more or view all topics or full text.
307202/22/06
1804H Regents of the University of California
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
The test for whether a respondent has interfered with the rights of employees under the HEERA does not require that unlawful motive be established, only that at least slight harm to employee rights results from the conduct. In order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent's conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under EERA. A violation may only be found if HEERA provides the claimed rights. A finding of coercion does not require evidence that the employee actually felt threatened or intimidated or was in fact discouraged from participating in protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
304401/04/06
1714E Simi Valley Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
The test for whether a respondent has interfered with the rights of employees under the EERA does not require that unlawful motive be established, only that at least slight harm employee rights results from the conduct. The principal’s conduct (the frequency, nature and tenor of her observations of the teacher’s classroom) harmed the teacher’s protected rights to act as a site representative, to challenge policies as violative of protected rights (unilateral changes in hours and terms and conditions of employment), and to request union representation. more or view all topics or full text.
291911/29/04
1711S State of California, (Department of Consumer Affairs)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
An employer's discipline of a supervisor may be found unlawful if it interferes with bargaining unit employees' exercise of their rights under the Dills Act. An employer may not discharge a supervisor for giving testimony adverse to an employer's interest either at an NLRB proceeding or during the processing of an employee's grievance; for refusing to commit unfair labor practices; or because the supervisor fails to prevent unionization; pp. 18-19. more or view all topics or full text.
291511/23/04
1508E San Marcos Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
District’s threat to discontinue dues deductions unlawfully interfered with both employee rights and union rights. more or view all topics or full text.
272701/16/03
1680S State of California (State Personnel Board)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
PERB has recognized that it is an unfair practice for an employer to prosecute a baseless lawsuit with the intent of retaliating against employees for their exercise of protected rights. In these cases, the lawsuit must be both objectively baseless and subjectively motivated by an unlawful purpose. more or view all topics or full text.
2822408/20/04
1486E Lodi Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Charging party failed to show how alleged bias of district witnesses or unwarranted credibility granted by ALJ to witness at hearing within statutory period demonstrated at least “slight harm” to rights protected under EERA. more or view all topics or full text.
263309606/28/02
1442E Fremont Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
No prima facie case of interference or retaliation where charge contains only limited evidence of what could be construed as harassment. Allegation of "threatened board action" concerning the failing grade given to a cheating student failed to provide a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice as required by PERB regulation 32615 (a) in order to permit PERB to determine whether a prima facie case has been stated. Allegations of "procedural hurdles" encountered before having grievances heard insufficient to establish prima facie case of interference or retaliation where alleged harm is principally delay and not the inability to obtain a forum for her claims. more or view all topics or full text.
253208206/07/01
1270E San Bernardino City Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
A threat to retaliate against an employee organization for protected activity interferes with the organization's statutory rights. Filing an unfair practice charge or a grievance is protected activity. Employees organizations as well as employees have statutory rights to file unfair practice charges and grievances; p. 72, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
222911306/22/98
1248E Alisal Union Elementary School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Disciplinary memorandum constituted harm because it tended to chill employee rebuttal to disciplinary memoranda; p. 13, proposed dec. Where employer had no business justification for disciplining employee based on protected activity, harm to employee rights outweighed employer's proffered business justification; p. 14, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
222904901/28/98
1188H Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Unlawful motivation or actual harm to employee rights is not required in interference cases; p. 21. more or view all topics or full text.
212806703/19/97
1104S State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Peace Officers Association)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
In employer interference with union's right to represent case, Board balanced employer's interest in preparing for disciplinary case and investigating employee misconduct against interference with union's right to call uncoerced witnesses in SPB hearing. Violation found because employer was not engaged in an investigation; p. 19, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
192609705/18/95
1006E Gonzales Union High School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
The District's asking the Association to waive its rights to negotiate in exchange for the District foregoing its statutory right to cancel the mentor teacher program is slight harm; p. 17, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
172411906/25/93
0901E San Diego Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
EERA section 3543 does not guarantee employees the right to vote in general elections free from the influence of financial self-interest; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
152215309/19/91
0833E Los Rios Community College District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Since there is no right under EERA for an employee to have the employer carry unstamped mail, there can be no interference violation. more or view all topics or full text.
142116008/10/90
0748E Los Angeles Community College District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Release of a confidential document to other employees is not interference where the circumstances require the release to investigate charging party's allegations of internal misfeasance; pp. 16-17, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
132014506/28/89
0742E Los Gatos-Saratoga School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Discrimination charges do not automatically give rise to a derivative interference violation; pp. 3-4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
132013206/19/89
0707H Regents of the University of California (Ridley)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Respondent's refusal to process grievance due to charging party's (1) failure to include an addendum, (2) failure to state a specific remedy, and (3) failure to submit the grievance on the agreed upon form does not deprive employees of their statutory right to effectively present their grievances. RA dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text.
132001512/21/88
0710H California State University (Pomona) (Hollis)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
No violation where respondent entered into an agreement with the exclusive representative under which a two-tiered Faculty Early Retirement Program was created. Charging party failed to demonstrate interference with the execise of a protected right. more or view all topics or full text.
132001812/21/88
0694H Regents of the University of California (Waters)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Failure of university to provide copy of union contract per contract requirement does not constitute interference because the contract was available elsewhere. more or view all topics or full text.
121913707/26/88
0699H University of California (Ridley)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
HEERA does not provide for a minimum number of days notice for a grievance hearing. No evidence 2 days notice deprived employees of their statutory rights to effectively present their grievances. more or view all topics or full text.
121916509/27/88
0700H University of California (Ridley)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
No interference with employee rights to present a grievance where employer required an addendum to be filed which would complete the facts underlying the grievance and state the remedy requested. more or view all topics or full text.
121916709/27/88
0687E Cottonwood Union High School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Posting of articles against unions and requesting the evaluation of union activists insufficient to give rise to an EERA violation. more or view all topics or full text.
121911506/27/88
0623E Los Angeles Community College District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Alleged collusion between employer and union does not affect failure to state claim of interference where no harm shown. more or view all topics or full text.
111810906/17/87
1953M Carmichael Recreation and Park District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Charging Party failed to meet its burden of proving that a cartoon shown to employees harmed their rights, constituting unlawful interference, as the Board found the two employees’ beliefs that the cartoon was threatening and retaliatory were unreasonable. more or view all topics or full text.
326904/17/08
0511E Riverside Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Charging party failed to state prima facie case for interference where he alleged that employer failed to provide grievance form, because no showing that such failure inhibited filing of grievance. more or view all topics or full text.
91615706/21/85
0505E Santa Paula School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
District's discriminatory transfer found to be interference with organizational rights and had potential chilling effect on other employees conduct. more or view all topics or full text.
91612805/07/85
0492E Sacramento City Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Not necessary to show unlawful motivation. more or view all topics or full text.
91609403/06/85
0470H Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
States standard for interference charge including burden of proof; prima facie showing found; pp. 40-44, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
91604112/28/84
0401E Inglewood Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Since personnel actions taken against employee found to be nondiscriminatory, there is no finding that these actions interfered with any of employee's protected rights; pp. 46-47, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
81515408/29/84
0362H Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Dismissed for failure to state prima facie case under HEERA. Breach of a settlement agreement alone does not violate HEERA. Charging party failed to allege nexus (retaliation or interference) between employer's conduct and employee's exercise of HEERA rights. more or view all topics or full text.
81500212/07/83
0353H Regents of the University of California
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Employer's unilateral reclassification of gardeners during organizing effort of CSEA, which may have caused some employees to view union as impotent and unreliable, does not constitute harm to employee rights. Employee rights are not harmed because employer chose not to accept union proposal. more or view all topics or full text.
71428010/27/83
0345E Sierra Joint Community College District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
District bylaw intending to regulate presentations made by employee organizations to the board of trustees violates subsection 3543.5(a) and (b); pp. 16-17. more or view all topics or full text.
71425509/22/83
0346H Regents of the University of California
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Under Carlsbad test, employee organization failed to show nexus between employer's refusal to reclassify, or to interview employee for two positions, and employee's protected activities. more or view all topics or full text.
71425609/22/83
0263E Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Association unable to prove that employer's transfer of two union activists was "inherently destructive" of employee rights; inasmuch as the transfers were nondiscriminatory, there was no interference with any employee right guaranteed by EERA; pp. 8-9. more or view all topics or full text.
71401512/16/82
0256E Chula Vista City School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Employer representative's advice to employee on grievance where it is non-coercive, does not constitute discrimination or interference. Employer representative's non-coercive advice to employee on how to file a grievance does not constitute an interference with the admin- istration of an employee organization. more or view all topics or full text.
61325411/08/82
0214E Sacramento City Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
In a pure interference case, it is not necessary for charging party to raise the inference that District was motivated by protected conduct; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text.
61311804/30/82
0212H Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Not necessary for charging parties to demonstrate quantifiable, measurable harm as a result of a change in policy, some inherent harm to employees and employee organizations is enough. more or view all topics or full text.
61311604/30/82
0210E Novato Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
In interference cases where motive/intent is not an issue, the charging party need only make a prima facie showing that the respondent's conduct tends to or does result in harm to employee rights granted by statutes; p. 5, fn. 5. more or view all topics or full text.
61311404/30/82
0983H Regents of the University of California (Alavarez)
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Charging party failed to state a prima facie case of employer interference by failing to consult with or allow a vote of employees in job classes transferred between bargaining units by agreement between the University and AFSCME; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
172406303/22/93
0977E Sierra Sands Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
The district allowed distribution of non-school materials in teacher mailboxes. Once the district opened the forum for non-school related leaflets, it could not then ban employees from using the mailboxes to engage in protected conduct; pp. 11-12, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
172405102/23/93
0089E Carlsbad Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Proof of unlawful intent is not required in all cases arising under sec. 3543.5(a) and to the extent that San Dieguito No. 22 held otherwise, it is overruled; "because of" language in sec. 3543.5(a) means only that some nexus must exist between the exercise of employee rights and the actions of the employer; pp. 5-9. Unlawful intent remains significant where it is affirmatively proven or where the employer claims justification for its conduct; pp. 9-10. Single test appropriate for evaluating all claims under 3543.5(a) (test set out on pp. 10-11) (but see Novato No. 210)). more or view all topics or full text.
31003101/30/79
0022E San Dieguito Union High School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, and also OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 285
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Employer's conduct must have the natural and probable consequences of interfering with employee's rights to state a violation. more or view all topics or full text.
136909/02/77
0075E San Francisco Unified School District
400.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
Totality of conduct, specifically, preparation of individual contracts for employees in proposed supervisory unit and selection of such employees for negotiating team, shows violation of sec. 3543.5(a); pp. 10-13. NLRA precedent instructs that an employer cannot offer contracts to employees for the purpose of infringing rights under the Act; p. 14. more or view all topics or full text.
2220310/03/78