All notes for Subtopic 401.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case.
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. An employer must allow an exclusive representative reasonable access to employer property to communicate with bargaining unit employees, distribute literature, investigate workplace conditions, and assess contractual and statutory compliance. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 26-39 (San Joaquin).) An employer bears the burden of proving that a restriction on access to its premises is: (1) necessary to safe or efficient operations; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (Id. at p. 27.) These principles apply irrespective of whether the person seeking access is a bargaining unit member or a union representative who does not work for the employer. (Ibid.) An employer generally does not afford reasonable access if it infringes on an employee’s ability to engage in protected activity either in a nonwork area or during a nonwork time. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 19-20; Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, pp. 45-47 (Petaluma).) Even if a workplace includes sensitive areas focused on national defense, acute patient care, or social services, the employer must narrowly tailor its rules and afford access to the fullest degree possible given its unique constraints. (San Joaquin, supra, PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 28, 33-34, 38-39.) In assessing an employer’s claim that it has narrowly tailored its rule to a particularized operational need, PERB considers whether the rule allows access to alternative venues that are a reasonable substitute for the restricted venue. (San Joaquin, supra, PERB Decision No. 2775-M, p. 29.)Foundational labor law principles under each PERB-administered labor relations statute protect nondisruptive picketing (San Marcos Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1508, p. 27 (San Marcos USD)), as well as “leafleting to advertise a labor dispute” (Regents of the University of California (2012) PERB Decision No. 2300-H, pp. 3 & 16). As summarized in Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485, both unions and employees engage in protected activity when they conduct “peaceful picketing” or “distribution of leaflets or other materials to advertise grievances or solicit support from employees and the public.” (Id. at p. 43.)Here, the employer’s policy appeared to be a neutral rule in that it bans all solicitation and distribution, whether union or otherwise. But the Board found it unlawful on its face, because it was not limited to patient care areas and prohibited union representatives from engaging in solicitation and distribution in nonwork areas and during nonwork times. The Board also found the policy unlawful as applied, because the employer failed to show that its rules were necessary for safe or efficient operations, and because the record overwhelmingly disproved any possibility that its rules are narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (pp. 28-34.) more or view all topics or full text. | 03/15/24 | ||
| 2868M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. The complaint allegation that an employer’s new solicitation and distribution policy interferes with protected union and employee rights is independent of any other claim. (State of California (State Water Resources Control Board) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2830-S, p. 10 & fn. 10 [if a charge or complaint alleges interference based upon the same conduct giving rise to another claim, the interference claim is independent if it can be established without the other claim being established].) (p. 55.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. A prima facie case of interference is established when a charging party shows the employer engaged in conduct that tends to or does result in at least slight harm to rights guaranteed by the MMBA. (Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 42 (Petaluma); see also Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, pp. 10-11.) No showing of unlawful motive, purpose, or intent is required. (Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 42.) Once a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the employer. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, p. 23 (judicial review pending); Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2632-M, pp. 18-19.) 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. (County of San Joaquin, supra, PERB Decision No. 2761-M, p. 23; Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, supra, PERB Decision No. 2632-M, p. 22.) For conduct that is harmful but not inherently destructive, the respondent may attempt to justify its actions based on operational necessity. (Ibid.) Within the category of actions or rules that are harmful but not inherently destructive, the asserted business need is balanced against the tendency to harm protected rights; if the tendency to harm outweighs the necessity, we find a violation. (Ibid.) When balancing, the stronger the tendency to harm, the greater the respondent’s burden becomes to show its business need was important and that its actions or rules were narrowly tailored to attain that purpose while limiting harm to protected rights as much as possible. (Ibid.) (p. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2699H | Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. 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 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Challenged local rule stated: “Employee organizations or any of their members shall neither directly nor indirectly [¶ . . . ¶] [e]ngage in organizing activities, including distribution of literature within County buildings.” PERB found such rule inconsistent with the MMBA because it is both discriminatory and overbroad. The rule was discriminatory because it explicitly addressed only protected activities, and there was no evidence that County had a comparable rule restricting employees from soliciting others, or engaging in organizing or publicity in the workplace, about issues or organizations unrelated to protected employee or union rights. The rule was overbroad because by its terms because it included both nonwork times and nonwork areas. The County violated the MMBA by maintaining the rule, irrespective of whether it enforced the rule. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. The MMBA affords both employee and non-employee representatives of employee organizations access to areas in which employees work, subject to reasonable employer regulation. (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2611-M, p. 3 (Orange); County of Riverside (2012) PERB Decision No. 2233-M, p. 8.) Any such regulation must be both necessary to the employer’s efficient operations or safety of employees or others, and narrowly drafted to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with the exercise of statutory rights. (Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2611-M, p. 3.) Moreover, an otherwise lawful rule will violate the MMBA if its language or application singles out union or other protected activities, as compared to non-protected activities. (Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2611-M, pp. 3-4; Regents of the University of California (Irvine) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2593-H, p. 8; Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 50.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Under the MMBA, a local agency may adopt reasonable access rules. (MMBA, § 3507, subd. (a)(6), (a)(7).) In order to be lawful, such rules and regulations may not undercut or frustrate the MMBA’s policies and purposes. (Int’l Federation of Professional & Technical Eng’rs, Local 21 v. City & County of San Francisco (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1300, 1306; Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Assn v. City of Huntington Beach (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 492, 500-502.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. In following Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731 (Bill Johnson’s). PERB has held that an employer’s decision to litigate claims against a union is generally not an unfair practice, unless the union can demonstrate that the claim had no reasonable basis and was subjectively motivated by an unlawful purpose. (County of Riverside (2018) PERB Decision No. 2591-M, p. 7, fn. 5; State of California (State Personnel Board) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1680-S, adopting warning letter at pp. 2-4; Rim of the World Unified School District (1986) PERB Order No. Ad-161, pp. 16-18; Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, supra, 461 U.S. at pp. 745-747.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2632M | Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. An interference violation may be found only where the pertinent PERB-administered statute provides the right(s) asserted by the charging party. Consequently, while an interference allegation may arise from an employer’s bargaining conduct, it cannot expand or otherwise alter the scope of the employer’s duty to meet and confer in good faith. (MMBA, §§ 3504, 3505.) [At the same time e]stablishing a bargaining violation is not a prerequisite for proving up an independent interference or discrimination allegation, even when the latter arises from the employer’s bargaining conduct. The MMBA prohibits public agencies from taking actions which are otherwise entirely lawful, when undertaken for an unlawful discriminatory purpose, or, in interference cases, with an unlawful coercive effect without regard to intent. Even where it has unquestioned discretion to act, a public agency is not free to exercise its authority in a manner that violates the rights of employees or employee organizations. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 150 | 03/07/19 |
| 2632M | Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Employer statements or other conduct containing a threat of reprisal or force or a promise of benefit on the basis of protected activity are unprotected and constitute a prima facie case of interference, coercion or restraint. (City of Oakland (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, pp. 25-26; Rio Hondo Community College District (1980) PERB Decision No. 128, pp. 18-20; NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co. (1964) 375 U.S. 405, 409-410.) Employer statements that convey the impression that collective bargaining is futile may also reasonably tend to discourage participation in protected activity and thereby interfere with the rights of employees and/or employee organizations. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 150 | 03/07/19 |
| 2632M | Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. 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 |
| 2588E | Los Angeles Unified School District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. 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 |
| 2616H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Overbroad restrictions on protected activity are deemed unlawful in toto, not merely in part. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 110 | 12/21/18 |
| 2566C | Los Angeles County Superior Court 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. 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 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. 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 |
| 2522H | Trustees of the California State University 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. 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 |
| 2453E | Cabrillo Community College District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 57 | 09/17/15 |
| I057M | City of Fremont 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. The MMBA accords recognized employee organizations the right to represent their members in their employment relations with public agencies, and it is unlawful for a public agency to deny these organizations the rights guaranteed to them under the MMBA. The MMBA prohibits public agencies from interfering with the formation and administration of any employee organization, or to encourage employees to join any employee organization in preference to another. The MMBA authorizes local agencies to adopt reasonable rules and regulations for the administration of employer-employee relations, including procedures for recognizing employee representatives as the exclusive bargaining agent for units of employees, as well as for decertifying an exclusive representative organization. That section specifically provides, however, that no public agency shall unreasonably withhold recognition of employee organizations. Moreover, it is an unlawful practice for a public agency to violate its own local rules, or to adopt and enforce local rules not in conformance with the provisions or purposes of the MMBA. The employer’s duty to bargain in good faith is owed to the recognized employee organization. Where the duty exists, an employer’s outright refusal to bargain with a recognized employee organization violates the duty to bargain in good faith. 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 |
| 2134H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. 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 |
| 2156S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Corcoran State Prison) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Charge failed to state a prima facie case of interference with the union’s rights because it alleged no facts establishing that the employer chose which union representatives would attend a meeting to discuss bidding of new positions. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 26 | 01/19/11 |
| 2104M | County of Mendocino 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. No interference with employee free choice in selection of a bargaining agent where the employer retracted a 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error on employee classifications that had moved to a new bargaining unit and were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. The employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit. The charge made no allegation of discrimination or retaliation, and made no claim that the employer’s conduct had a material effect on employee free choice. Employees who exercise choice in representative status have no right to insist upon bargaining free from economic disadvantages, and an employer’s use of economic pressures solely in support of a bargaining position cannot be held unlawful for that reason alone. An employer is entitled to withhold benefits that employees might have obtained had they remained unorganized so long as the employer engages in good faith bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 74 | 04/21/10 |
| 2030M | Omnitrans 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Employer’s initiation of arrest of employee/union officer for refusal to leave drivers’ assembly room where officer was discussing union matters with individual employees interfered with union’s right to access employees and employees’ right to discuss union matters with union representatives. The officer’s discussion of union matters with employees was a protected activity. The employer failed to establish a legitimate business reason for denying the officer access to the assembly room because the evidence showed the officer was not disrupting the employer’s operations in any way. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 91 | 05/29/09 |
| 1856M | Modesto Irrigation District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Totality of the circumstances did not provide sufficient evidence that the employer failed to adequately maintain posted notices, or that employees were unable to reach the polling locations during voting hours. Thus, there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of interference. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 1 | 09/01/06 |
| 1857M | IBEW Local 1245 (Tacke) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. An individual does not have standing to allege interference with protected rights if the employee is not a member of the class affected by the employer’s action. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 2 | 09/01/06 |
| 1891M | City of Los Altos 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. The City’s policy of refusing to provide disciplinary information absent a request by the union and consent by the employee involved did not constitute interference because the union failed to demonstrate that the City's conduct resulted in any harm to employee rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 74 | 03/14/07 |
| 1840M | County of Santa Cruz 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. No prima facie case where no attempt to interfere with internal union politics or sway favor away from the exclusive representative. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 122 | 05/17/06 |
| 1664M | City and County of San Francisco 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Although Poon stated a prima facie case of interference, the City contended that her involuntary transfer was due to lack of work in her department. Local 790 was advised of this response in the warning letter but did not file an amended charge to dispute this fact and so did not refute the employer’s claim of legitimate business reasons for its action. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 231 | 07/27/04 |
| 1667E | Los Angeles Community College District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. An employer's denial of a grievance is not interference with an employee's rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 212 | 07/27/04 |
| 1669M | Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. District’s letter to employees informing them of deficiencies in decertification petition and provision to employees of applicable rules and regulations governing decertification petitions do not constitute unlawful assistance. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 213 | 07/28/04 |
| 1506E | Santa Clarita Community College District (College of the Canyons) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. PERB Reg. 32781 does not allow an employer to enter into an agreement with an employee organization to accrete into an existing unit unrepresented employees where those employees are the subject of a current organizing drive by a rival employee organization. District’s agreement constituted unlawful interference in violation of EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 35 | 01/08/03 |
| I055M | County of San Joaquin (Health Care Services) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Injunctive relief granted where Board found reasonable cause to believe that employer suspended employee because he was union’s primary organizer. Injunctive relief was just and proper because suspension occurred during an election and the impact on the election could not be remedied by the Board at a later time. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32109 | 09/05/01 |
| 1339S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. In cases involving allegedly discriminatory access rules, the Board analyzes the employer's rule as a potential interference with employee exercise of protected rights. In an interference case, it is not necessary for the charging party to show that the respondent acted with an unlawful motivation. (Regents of the University of California (1983) PERB Decision No. 305-H. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30146 | 08/03/99 |
| 1308S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. The threshold test in analyzing allegations of violations of section 3519(d) is "whether the employer's conduct tends to influence [free] choice or provide stimulus in one direction or another," citing Santa Monica Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 103; or interferes with the formation or administration of the union; p. 3, warning letter. Section 3519(d) does not address interference with union activities or discrimination based on protected activities; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30046 | 01/27/99 |
| 1270E | San Bernardino City Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. * * * 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. Employee 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 |
| 1104S | State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Peace Officers Association) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. 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 |
| 1026S | State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) (International Union of Operating Engineers, Craft-Maintenance Division, Units 12 and 13) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. In cases of alleged interference, a violation will be found when the employer's acts interfere with the exercise of protected rights and the employer is unable to justify its actions by proving operational necessity; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25011 | 11/17/93 |
| 0864E | Newark Unified School District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Where District involuntarily transferred employee in retaliation for his union activism, conduct also denied Association rights guaranteed under EERA and thus constituted violation of EERA section 3543.5(b); p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22023 | 01/14/91 |
| 0763H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) * * * OVERRULED by Culver City Employees Association v. City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M, where the Board held that an employer must negotiate before enforcing a previously unenforced policy that was never bargained with the union. * * *Allegations insufficient to show interference with organizing or other protected rights by employer's enforcement of policy on payroll deductions for union-sponsored benefits program. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20193 | 09/14/89 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Allegation that public school employer specifically prohibited distribution of “union” information during the 30 minutes before the start of the regular work day stated prima facie allegation of employer interference with protected employee and organizational rights because it was overbroad in its categorical ban on distributing flyers at any time during the workday, without regard to off-duty time, such as employee meal or rest breaks. Allegation that public school employer promulgated, maintained and enforced policy which expressly singled out for prohibition materials of a “union” content at anytime and anywhere in the workplace stated prima facie case of employer conduct that is inherently destructive of protected employee and organizational rights. Although the employer’s representative allegedly clarified that its e-mail message stating a categorical ban on distributing union literature was intended to address questions from school principals and “was not intended to be shared with staff,” school district did not rebut prima facie case where it never claimed to have publicly and unequivocally disavowed either any inadvertent distribution of the message to teachers or its enforcement by one school principal. Additionally, unless an affirmative defense is established on undisputed facts as a matter of law, it will not rebut a prima facie case at the charge investigation stage of PERB’s unfair practice proceedings. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 23 | 06/30/16 |
| 0410E | Gonzales Union High School District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Employer removal of union Pepsi machine was not unlawful, even if for retaliatory reasons. In order to establish a violation, employee organization must establish the "rights guaranteed by this chapter" were at issue. Organization has no right to maintain a soft drink machine for its own profit on employer's property. Operation of the machine could constitute unlawful assistance. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15177 | 09/28/84 |
| 0344S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Employer notice to department executive directors to treat professional organization as labor union and cease special treatment given to professional organizations is proper. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14245 | 09/12/83 |
| 0329H | Regents of the University of California, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Employer's rules restricting access to areas within the acute care hospital are reviewed, some upheld and others rejected. Test of balancing justifiable concerns and avoiding overbroad, unnecessary interference with statutory rights. HEERA provides to employee organization representatives, employee and nonemployee alike, a presumptive right to access to employees at reasonable times in areas where they work; p. 6. Presumptive right can be rebutted by evidence that a ban on access is necessary to prevent disruption of health care operations or disturbance of patients. Employee lounges, locker rooms and classrooms are not immediate patient care areas, and are legitimate avenues of access. Exceptions discussed including employer's right to make reasonable precautions to prevent spreading infections. Employer carries burden of proving disruption would occur. Availability of alternative access is important factor to infections. Employer carries burden of proving disruption would occur. Availability of alternative access is important factor to with right of employees who wish to participate in employee organization activities; p. 17. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14214 | 08/05/83 |
| 0251E | Coast Community College District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. The distinction between "interference" and "discrimination" is often blurred; discrimination against organizers may interfere with the right of employees to form and participate in employee organizations; in the instant case however, union did not meet burden of proof; pp. 19-20. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13237 | 10/15/82 |
| 0212H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. 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 |
| 0117E | Grossmont Community College District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. No prima facie case for interference or discrimination where Union fails to show employees engaged in protected activity which resulted resulted in their non-reelection; pp. 5-6, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11043 | 03/19/80 |
| 0097E | Antelope Valley Community College District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Totality of employer conduct warrants finding unlawful interference; pp. 21-22. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10098 | 07/18/79 |
| 0089E | Carlsbad Unified School District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Interference with employee rights does not of necessity constitute a denial of organization rights; here, no evidence that district's actions denied the union any rights guaranteed to it; p. 15. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10031 | 01/30/79 |
| 0075E | San Francisco Unified School District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Though record establishes interference with employee rights, no evidence that the district's conduct affected unions's rights; p. 15. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2203 | 10/03/78 |
| 0061E | Clovis Unified School District 401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case. Section 3543.5 (a) violation does not automatically constitute (b) violation; Board will not speculate on how conduct violated subdivision (b) where charging party failed to provide argument pertaining to that subdivision; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2159 | 08/07/78 |