All notes for Subtopic 400.01000 – In General; Standards
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2856M | Alameda Health System 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards Ending the employment of an employee who has recently engaged in protected activity is likely to have a chilling effect on other employees’ likelihood of engaging in similar actions, though that effect may be lessened where serious work performance issues justified the employee’s termination. (p. 30.) While there may be instances when an employer’s established defense to retaliation does not defeat an independent interference allegation based on the same underlying facts, that was not the case here. The harm caused by releasing an employee from probation shortly after he engaged in protected activity is outweighed by the employer’s right to release an employee from probation for serious work performance issues. (p. 31.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 144 | 03/23/23 |
| 2856M | Alameda Health System 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards The Board rejected any automatic rule that an employer’s affirmative defense to retaliation automatically negates the possibility of harm under a related but independent interference allegation, and clarified that an employer’s business defense is properly considered as part of the Carlsbad balancing analysis. (p. 30, fn. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 144 | 03/23/23 |
| 2856M | Alameda Health System 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards An adverse employment action taken against a known union activist need not be inherently destructive if nondiscriminatory reasons warrant the action, because in such circumstances the action does not send the message that union activists will be disadvantaged. (p. 28.) While there are instances where animus establishing a prima facie case also triggers the inherently destructive standard, a nondiscriminatory personnel action need not be inherently destructive. (p. 29.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 144 | 03/23/23 |
| 2770M | City of Bellflower 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards To establish a prima facie interference case, a charging party must show that an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to union and/or employee rights protected under the statutes PERB enforces. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 36.) Once a charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer. (Ibid.) The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (Ibid.) If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, the employer must show that the interference results from circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. (Ibid.) For conduct that is not inherently destructive, the respondent may attempt to justify its actions based on business necessity. (Ibid.) In such cases, PERB balances the asserted business necessity against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, PERB finds a violation. (Ibid.) Within the category of actions or rules that are not inherently destructive, the stronger the tendency to harm, the greater is the respondent’s burden to show its business necessity was important and that it narrowly tailored its actions or rules to attain that purpose while limiting harm to protected rights as much as possible. (Id. at p. 36, fn. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 119 | 06/08/21 |
| 2822E | Victor Valley Union High School District 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards To analyze allegations of employer interference with the rights of employees or employee organizations, PERB uses the standard articulated in Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89. A charging party establishes a prima facie case of interference where an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in at least slight harm to protected rights. The test for whether a respondent has interfered with protected rights does not require that unlawful motive be established. Once a charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the respondent. The degree of harm dictates the respondent’s burden. If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, the respondent must show that the interference results from circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. For conduct that is harmful but not inherently destructive, the respondent may attempt to justify its actions based on operational necessity. In such cases, PERB balances the asserted need against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, PERB finds a violation. Within the category of actions or rules that are not inherently destructive, the stronger the tendency to harm, the greater is the respondent’s burden to show its need was important and that it narrowly tailored its actions or rules to attain that purpose while limiting harm to protected rights as much as possible. more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2804E | South Orange County Community College District 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards Charging Party alleges she was prevented from returning to campus for union meetings after she was issued a Notice of Intent to Discipline and escorted off campus. The Board held this argument failed for two reasons. First, a directive for an employee not to communicate with her union while on suspension would unlawfully interfere with the employee’s EERA-protected rights. But the amended charge did not allege, nor did the filings contain, the terms of Charging Party’s suspension, so there were no alleged facts showing such a prohibition. Second, even if Charging Party could not attend union meetings on campus, the amended charge did not allege facts showing the school district prevented Charging Party from communicating with union representatives by other means, such as telephone, e-mail, or meeting off-campus. And to the extent Charging Party claimed her suspension precluded her from addressing the school district board of trustees about a proposed contractual equity clause, the amended charge alleged no facts showing that the terms of her suspension barred her from attending and participating in what presumably was a meeting open to the public. For these reasons, the Board affirmed the Office of the General Counsel’s dismissal of the interference allegation based on Charging Party’s suspension. (p. 18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 111 | 01/28/22 |
| 2782M | Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.) 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards The California Public Records Act (CPRA; Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.) was enacted “for the explicit purpose of ‘increasing freedom of information.’” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 651, internal citations omitted.) Invoking the CPRA—whether via litigation or via correspondence that could lead to litigation—normally should not constitute interference except where such acts are baseless and taken in bad faith, as set forth in Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 35 | 07/26/21 |
| 2782M | Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.) 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards Where a charging party alleges a respondent has interfered with protected activities via litigation, the charging party faces an extra hurdle that is not present in other interference cases: the charging party must establish that the respondent acted without any reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 9-10.) PERB applies these principles because it finds persuasive a private sector labor law decision, Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731 (Bill Johnson’s), which protects labor rights while also preserving parties’ ability to pursue colorable litigation in good faith. Bill Johnson’s principles are thus akin to litigation privilege principles, though less absolute. (See Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 14.) By following Bill Johnson’s, PERB applies a qualified litigation privilege rather than the nearly absolute privilege set forth in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), preserving parties’ ability to litigate colorable legal rights while disallowing baseless, bad faith conduct that tends to harm protected labor rights. (County of Riverside (2018) PERB Decision No. 2591-M, p. 7, fn. 5; see generally Zerger et al., editors, California Public Sector Labor Relations (2d ed. 2021) § 13.15.) Applying these qualified principles helps to assure that California’s labor laws are not rendered ineffective. (Cf. People v. Persolve, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1274.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 35 | 07/26/21 |
| 2771M | City of Long Beach 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards To establish a prima facie interference case, a charging party must show that an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to union and/or employee rights protected under the statutes PERB enforces. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 36.) Once a charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer. (Ibid.) The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (Ibid.) If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, the employer must show that the interference results from circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. (Ibid.) For conduct that is not inherently destructive, the respondent may attempt to justify its actions based on business necessity. (Ibid.) In such cases, PERB balances the asserted business necessity against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, PERB finds a violation. (Ibid.) Within the category of actions or rules that are not inherently destructive, the stronger the tendency to harm, the greater is the respondent’s burden to show its business necessity was important and that it narrowly tailored its actions or rules to attain that purpose while limiting harm to protected rights as much as possible. (Id. at p. 36, fn. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 1 | 06/09/21 |
| 2761M | County of San Joaquin 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards The Board first established its current interference test in Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, p. 5 (Carlsbad). To establish a prima facie interference case under the Carlsbad standard, a charging party must show that an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to union and/or employee rights protected under the statutes we enforce. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 36.) A charging party need not establish that the employer held an unlawful motive. (Ibid.) Once a charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer. (Ibid.) The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (Ibid.) If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, the employer must show that the interference results from circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. (Ibid.) For conduct that is not inherently destructive (which we sometimes label “comparatively slight”), the respondent may attempt to justify its actions based on operational necessity. (Ibid.) In such cases, we balance the asserted business need against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, we find a violation. (Ibid.) Within the category of actions or rules that are not inherently destructive, the stronger the tendency to harm, the greater is the respondent’s burden to show its business need was important and that it narrowly tailored its actions or rules to attain that purpose while limiting harm to protected rights as much as possible. (Id. at p. 36, fn. 19.) PERB precedent considers interfering conduct and employer justifications on a continuum, holding that if conduct rises to the level of “inherently destructive,” then the employer must justify it by demonstrating circumstances beyond its control, leaving it with no alternative course of action. (Carlsbad, supra, PERB Decision No. 89, pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 92 | 04/12/21 |
| 2755H | Regents of the University of California 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards Violations of PEDD section 3550 do not require a showing of coercive effect, and thus do not give rise to derivative interference violations. (p. 53.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 81 | 03/01/21 |
| 2755H | Regents of the University of California 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards To establish a prima facie interference case, a charging party must show that a respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to protected rights under our statutes. Once a charging party establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer. The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (p. 52.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 81 | 03/01/21 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards Employer communications to employees and their representative which misrepresent or omit material information about pending employment decisions may state an interference violation, separate from an alleged bargaining violation, because they would reasonably tend to discourage the representative from requesting negotiations, filing a grievance, or taking other action necessary to represent the employees’ or the organization’s interests. While this theory of liability overlaps factually with the inadequate notice element of UC-AFT’s unilateral subcontracting theories, it is not purely derivative of the unilateral change allegations. Employer conduct allegedly constituting a unilateral change may also state a prima facie case of reprisal or interference with protected rights, where it was allegedly undertaken for a discriminatory purpose or would reasonably tend to discourage protected activity. In such instances, establishing a bargaining violation is not necessary for proving up an independent interference or discrimination allegation. (pp. 67-68.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards Notwithstanding similarities with the NLRB’s analysis for interference under National Labor Relations Act section 8(a)(1), the Carlsbad Board expressly rejected the notion of an implied management rights clause in the statute which would immunize managerial decisions from interference liability, and we have found no subsequent decision in which PERB has endorsed the logic of Textile Workers’ Union of America v. Darlington Manufacturing Company (1965) 380 U.S. 263 or held that an employer’s conduct is immune from interference liability, simply because it involves a managerial prerogative. (Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89.) To the contrary, PERB has continued to recognize an “inherent and substantial distinction” between the property interests of private-sector employers and the manner in which our statutes govern public-sector labor relations. Thus, whether the University’s decision to close and subcontract the Young Musician’s Program was negotiable or a fundamental managerial prerogative has no bearing on whether it interfered with protected rights. Rather, for analyzing an interference allegation under Carlsbad, we ask whether, under the circumstances, the University’s conduct had an actual or reasonably likely adverse effect on the exercise of protected rights, including those of the laid off Program instructors or other University employees. Because a layoff removes employees from the workplace, and may terminate the employment relationship altogether, we conclude that the University’s layoff of Program Instructors involved in protected activity would reasonably tend to discourage the laid off employees from engaging in present or future protected activity, regardless of whether it would likely discourage protected activity by other employees. (p. 65, 67.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards Although an employer may terminate programs or services for financial or operational reasons aimed at the fulfilment of its mission, such decisions are not immune from scrutiny where they are alleged to violate protected rights. Thus, while employees’ rights to engage in protected activity are not absolute and must coexist with the employer’s inherent managerial interests, neither are there any forms of employer conduct, including those involving fundamental policy decisions at the core of the employer’s mission, which are categorically immune from interference liability under the statute. (pp. 62-63.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards In Coast Community College District (1982) PERB Decision No. 251, the Board distinguished between the Carlsbad interference and Novato discrimination standards, but also explained that, employer conduct directed against union officials or organizers may be appropriately analyzed under either or both standards, as such conduct not only constitutes discrimination, but also “clearly interferes with the right of employees to form and participate in employee organizations.” (Id. at p. 20; Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89; Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210.) Accordingly, under PERB precedent, and unlike private-sector precedent, such conduct may be deemed “inherently destructive” for either a discrimination or interference allegation. (p. 60, fn. 25.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards In Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, the Board expressly rejected the National Labor Relations Act’s bifurcation of interference and discrimination allegations in favor of a single, comprehensive test covering all employer violations of employee rights, regardless of whether the conduct at issue is characterized as reprisal, discrimination, interference, restraint, coercion, or a threat to engage in such conduct. Although PERB has since adopted and refined other tests for employer violations of employee rights, it has never overruled the holding in San Dieguito Union High School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 22, as modified and affirmed by Carlsbad, that a single, comprehensive test applies for all employer violations of employee rights. To the contrary, because the employee rights and employer unfair practice provisions of HEERA and other PERB-administered statutes are virtually identical to those in EERA, PERB has repeatedly extended the Carlsbad test to the other PERB-administered statutes. (pp. 54-55.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2731M | City of Culver City 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards The Board found that the employer unlawfully interfered with employees’ rights. To prove employer interference with protected rights, a charging party need only show that the employer has engaged in conduct that tends to or does result in at least slight harm to statutory rights. [Citation.] By communicating directly with unit employees on matters subject to bargaining before the tentative agreement was finalized, the employer interfered with the rights of unit employees to be fully represented by the union. (p. 23.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 6 | 06/10/20 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards MMBA section 3506.5, subdivision (d) proscribes public agencies from “interfer[ing] with the . . . administration of any employee organization.” While much PERB precedent addresses an employer’s duty to remain strictly neutral when two different employee organizations are in competition with each other, an employer also may violate this clause by interfering in an employee organization’s internal affairs, even in the absence of competing unions. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, pp. 22-34 (Arcadia).) To demonstrate such interference, a charging party must establish facts showing that the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the internal activities of an employee organization. (Arcadia, supra, PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 24.) An employer may not take a position on internal union affairs or put its thumb on the scale in favor of or against a particular union leader. (Id. at pp. 25-30.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards In evaluating whether employer speech constitutes interference with protected rights, “the Board will look 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.” (Hartnell Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2452, p. 25.) E-mail from manager to unit member fell outside the range of permissible employer speech in two respects. First, it was coercive in that it suggested that employees may lose desirable assignments due to protected activity. Next, management e-mail suggested that employee might avoid adverse action and/or obtain preferential treatment for opposing union leadership. It is of no consequence whether unit member shared manager’s e-mails with any other employees or Union representatives. Manager’s coercion was unlawful even if no one other than unit member receiving e-mail knew of it. (See, e.g., Claremont Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2654, pp. 19-24 [district’s conduct interfered with a single employee’s statutory rights]; Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834, p. 13 [a brief statement made only to one person is sufficient to support an interference claim].) Furthermore, employer’s e-mail also tended to interfere with others’ protected conduct given the possibility that unit member might forward it to other employees or share the message contained in the e-mail. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards Once a prima facie case is established, the Board has categorized employer conduct as “inherently destructive” or having a “comparatively slight” impact (see, e.g., Trustees of the California State University (Northridge) (2019) PERB Decision No. 2687-H, p. 3), but the latter descriptor signifies only that the tendency to harm protected rights is something less than inherently destructive; it does not mean that the tendency to harm is necessarily “slight.” Within the category of employer actions or rules that are not inherently destructive, the stronger the tendency to harm, the greater is the employer’s burden to show its purpose was important and that it narrowly tailored its actions or rules to attain that purpose while limiting harm to protected rights to the extent possible. (See, e.g., County of San Bernardino (Office of the Public Defender) (2015) PERB Decision No. 2423-M, p. 36 [“The scrutiny with which the employer’s conduct will be examined depends on the severity of the harm.”]; Claremont Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2654, p. 23 [“The key to an appropriate directive is that it is tailored to the particular circumstances.”]; Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1700-H, adopting proposed decision at p. 60 [in devising access rules for its main administrative building, employer may have had legitimate concern that demonstrators might block ingress and egress or otherwise disrupt operations, but employer broadly prohibited all demonstrations rather than narrowly drawing its rules to address legitimate operational needs].) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards In Regents of the University of California (2018) PERB Decision No. 2610-H, the Board explained that conduct is inherently destructive if its “natural and probable consequence” is to discourage protected activity, including but not limited to requiring employees to give up protected activity to receive a pay increase; maintaining an overbroad restriction that bars a mix of protected and unprotected activities; or implementing a wholesale replacement of represented employees with non-represented employees. (Id. at pp. 58-61 & 71.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards To establish a prima facie interference case, a charging party must show that a respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to protected rights under our statutes. (Trustees of the California State University (Northridge) (2019) PERB Decision No. 2687-H, p. 3.) Once a charging party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer. (Ibid.) The degree of harm dictates the employer’s burden. (Ibid.) If the harm is “inherently destructive” of protected rights, then the employer must show that the interference was caused by circumstances beyond its control and that no alternative course of action was available. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) On the other hand, for employer conduct that is not inherently destructive, the employer may attempt to justify its actions based on operational necessity. (Id. at p. 3.) In such cases, PERB will balance the employer’s asserted interests against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the asserted business justification, PERB finds a violation. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2723E | Lodi Unified School District 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards The District’s ongoing enforcement of an interpretation contrary to the parties’ agreement concurrently violates EERA 3543.5, subdivision (a) and EERA 3543.5, subdivision (b) because it necessarily interferes with employees in the exercise of protected rights by denying the statutory right of an exclusive representative to represent unit members in their employment relations. (San Francisco Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 105, pp.12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 189 | 05/26/20 |
| 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards The Board found that the employer unlawfully interfered with employees’ rights. To prove employer interference with protected rights, a charging party need only show that the employer has engaged in conduct that tends to or does result in at least slight harm to statutory rights. [Citation.] By communicating directly with unit employees on matters subject to bargaining before the tentative agreement was finalized, the employer interfered with the rights of unit employees to be fully represented by the union. (p. 23.) more or view all topics or full text. | ||||
| 2699H | Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010) 400.01000: 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. | 44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2699H | Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010) 400.01000: 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. | 44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2687H | Trustees of the California State University (Northridge) 400.01000: 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. | 44 | 109 | 12/13/19 |
| 2634E | San Diego Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 156 | 03/22/19 |
| 2634E | San Diego Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 156 | 03/22/19 |
| 2634E | San Diego Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 156 | 03/22/19 |
| 2632M | Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 150 | 03/07/19 |
| 2687H | Trustees of the California State University (Northridge) 400.01000: 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. | 44 | 109 | 12/13/19 |
| 2654E | Claremont Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 44 | 24 | 07/10/19 |
| 2654E | Claremont Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 44 | 24 | 07/10/19 |
| 2648M | City of Arcadia 400.01000: 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. | 44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2588E | Los Angeles Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2586E | Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez) 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2613M | County of Santa Clara 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 104 | 12/21/18 |
| 2602M | City of Commerce 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 89 | 12/11/18 |
| 2602M | City of Commerce 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 89 | 12/11/18 |
| 2595E | William S. Hart Union High School District 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 74 | 11/09/18 |
| 2593H | Regents of the University of California (Irvine) 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 69 | 10/26/18 |
| 2556M | County of San Bernardino 400.01000: 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. | 42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2556M | County of San Bernardino 400.01000: 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. | 42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2566C | Los Angeles County Superior Court 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 1 | 06/12/18 |
| 2566C | Los Angeles County Superior Court 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 1 | 06/12/18 |
| 2567E | Hartnell Community College District 400.01000: 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. | 43 | 2 | 06/12/18 |
| 2530E | Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 42 | 2 | 06/19/17 |
| 2530E | Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 42 | 2 | 06/19/17 |
| 2525M | City of Livermore 400.01000: 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. | 41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2522H | Trustees of the California State University 400.01000: 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. | 41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2536M | City and County of San Francisco 400.01000: 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. | 42 | 14 | 06/30/17 |
| 2452E | Hartnell Community College District 400.01000: 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. | 40 | 56 | 09/04/15 |
| 2453E | Cabrillo Community College District 400.01000: 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. | 40 | 57 | 09/17/15 |
| 2408H | Trustees of the California State University (East Bay) 400.01000: 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. | 39 | 87 | 01/13/15 |
| I057M | City of Fremont 400.01000: 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. | 38 | 68 | 10/25/13 |
| 2361M | County of Merced 400.01000: 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. | 38 | 140 | 03/25/14 |
| 2404E | Los Angeles Community College District 400.01000: 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. | 39 | 82 | 12/24/14 |
| 2283E | Jurupa Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 37 | 58 | 08/21/12 |
| 2384H | Trustees of the California State University 400.01000: 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. | 39 | 16 | 06/30/14 |
| 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 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Trustees of the California State University (Northridge) (2019) PERB Decision No. 2687-H. * * *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. | 37 | 72 | 09/17/12 |
| 2267M | County of Santa Clara * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2479 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2479. * * *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. | 37 | 6 | 05/25/12 |
| 2134H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 400.01000: 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. | 34 | 141 | 10/01/10 |
| 2177H | Regents of the University of California (Irvine) * * * Overruled by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision 2632-M 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards * * * OVERRULED by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2632-M, where the Board held that an employer who automatically and pre-emptively excludes union-represented employees from an otherwise negotiable benefit granted to unrepresented employees, unlawfully discriminates and interferes with protected rights. * * *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 e-mail and website did not constitute interference because they were not coercive. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 70 | 03/29/11 |
| 2106Sa | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C. * * *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. | 35 | 59 | 03/01/11 |
| 2156S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Corcoran State Prison) 400.01000: 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. | 35 | 26 | 01/19/11 |
| 2140H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 400.01000: 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. | 34 | 165 | 11/02/10 |
| 2123S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 400.01000: 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. | 34 | 117 | 07/28/10 |
| 2119M | County of Riverside 400.01000: 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. | 34 | 108 | 06/24/10 |
| 2073E | Los Angeles Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 33 | 178 | 10/28/09 |
| 2010M | Omnitrans 400.01000: 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. | 33 | 54 | 03/10/09 |
| 2022M | City of Modesto 400.01000: 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. | 33 | 84 | 05/12/09 |
| 2031M | Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Roseville (2016) PERB Decision No. 2505-M 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by City of Roseville (2016) PERB Decision No. 2505-M. * * *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. | 33 | 92 | 05/29/09 |
| 2021E | Alvord Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 33 | 76 | 04/30/09 |
| 2005M | County of San Diego 400.01000: 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. | 33 | 47 | 02/27/09 |
| 1986E | Rio School District 400.01000: 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. | 33 | 8 | 11/21/08 |
| 1971M | City of Torrance 400.01000: 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. | 32 | 126 | 08/21/08 |
| 1961S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 400.01000: 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. | 32 | 101 | 06/17/08 |
| 1916M | County of Imperial 400.01000: 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. | 31 | 120 | 06/28/07 |
| 1912H | Regents of the University of California 400.01000: 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. | 31 | 117 | 06/26/07 |
| 1864S | State of California (State Personnel Board) 400.01000: 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. | 31 | 11 | 11/14/06 |
| 1840M | County of Santa Cruz 400.01000: 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. | 30 | 122 | 05/17/06 |
| 1841M | City of Fresno 400.01000: 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. | 30 | 126 | 05/18/06 |
| 1822E | Santee Elementary School District 400.01000: 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. | 30 | 72 | 02/22/06 |
| 1804H | Regents of the University of California 400.01000: 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. | 30 | 44 | 01/04/06 |
| 1714E | Simi Valley Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 29 | 19 | 11/29/04 |
| 1711S | State of California, (Department of Consumer Affairs) 400.01000: 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. | 29 | 15 | 11/23/04 |
| 1508E | San Marcos Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 27 | 27 | 01/16/03 |
| 1680S | State of California (State Personnel Board) 400.01000: 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. | 28 | 224 | 08/20/04 |
| 1486E | Lodi Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 26 | 33096 | 06/28/02 |
| 1442E | Fremont Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 25 | 32082 | 06/07/01 |
| 1270E | San Bernardino City Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *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 decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29113 | 06/22/98 |
| 1248E | Alisal Union Elementary School District 400.01000: 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. | 22 | 29049 | 01/28/98 |
| 1188H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 400.01000: 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. | 21 | 28067 | 03/19/97 |
| 1104S | State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Peace Officers Association) 400.01000: 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. | 19 | 26097 | 05/18/95 |
| 1006E | Gonzales Union High School District 400.01000: 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. | 17 | 24119 | 06/25/93 |
| 0901E | San Diego Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 15 | 22153 | 09/19/91 |
| 0833E | Los Rios Community College District 400.01000: 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. | 14 | 21160 | 08/10/90 |
| 0748E | Los Angeles Community College District 400.01000: 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. | 13 | 20145 | 06/28/89 |
| 0742E | Los Gatos-Saratoga School District 400.01000: 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. | 13 | 20132 | 06/19/89 |
| 0707H | Regents of the University of California (Ridley) 400.01000: 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. | 13 | 20015 | 12/21/88 |
| 0710H | California State University (Pomona) (Hollis) 400.01000: 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. | 13 | 20018 | 12/21/88 |
| 0694H | Regents of the University of California (Waters) 400.01000: 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. | 12 | 19137 | 07/26/88 |
| 0699H | University of California (Ridley) 400.01000: 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. | 12 | 19165 | 09/27/88 |
| 0700H | University of California (Ridley) 400.01000: 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. | 12 | 19167 | 09/27/88 |
| 0687E | Cottonwood Union High School District 400.01000: 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. | 12 | 19115 | 06/27/88 |
| 0623E | Los Angeles Community College District 400.01000: 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. | 11 | 18109 | 06/17/87 |
| 1953M | Carmichael Recreation and Park District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *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. | 32 | 69 | 04/17/08 |
| 0511E | Riverside Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 9 | 16157 | 06/21/85 |
| 0505E | Santa Paula School District 400.01000: 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. | 9 | 16128 | 05/07/85 |
| 0492E | Sacramento City Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 9 | 16094 | 03/06/85 |
| 0470H | Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association) 400.01000: 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. | 9 | 16041 | 12/28/84 |
| 0401E | Inglewood Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 8 | 15154 | 08/29/84 |
| 0362H | Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association) 400.01000: 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. | 8 | 15002 | 12/07/83 |
| 0353H | Regents of the University of California 400.01000: 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. | 7 | 14280 | 10/27/83 |
| 0345E | Sierra Joint Community College District 400.01000: 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. | 7 | 14255 | 09/22/83 |
| 0346H | Regents of the University of California 400.01000: 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. | 7 | 14256 | 09/22/83 |
| 0263E | Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards * * * CLARIFIED BY Service Employees International Union Local 1021 v. Alameda Health System, PERB Decision No. XXXX, which rejected any automatic rule that an employer’s affirmative defense to retaliation automatically negates the possibility of harm under a related but independent interference allegation, and clarified that an employer’s business defense is properly considered as part of the Carlsbad balancing analysis. (p. 30, fn. 14,) * * *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. | 7 | 14015 | 12/16/82 |
| 0256E | Chula Vista City School District 400.01000: 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. | 6 | 13254 | 11/08/82 |
| 0214E | Sacramento City Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 6 | 13118 | 04/30/82 |
| 0212H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) 400.01000: 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. | 6 | 13116 | 04/30/82 |
| 0210E | Novato Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 6 | 13114 | 04/30/82 |
| 0983H | Regents of the University of California (Alavarez) 400.01000: 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. | 17 | 24063 | 03/22/93 |
| 0977E | Sierra Sands Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 17 | 24051 | 02/23/93 |
| 0089E | Carlsbad Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 3 | 10031 | 01/30/79 |
| 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. 285 400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89 and Los Angeles Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 285. * * *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. | 1 | 369 | 09/02/77 |
| 0075E | San Francisco Unified School District 400.01000: 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. | 2 | 2203 | 10/03/78 |