All notes for Subtopic 401.04000 – Access – Union Right
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2895M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Palomar Health 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right 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 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Employer’s policy that prohibits “[t]he solicitation of employees by employee union representatives and non-employee union organizers during an employee’s work time and/or in patient care areas at any time,” and also broadly prohibits non-employees from soliciting “membership in, or participation on behalf of any social, fraternal, political, religious or other organization” and distributing literature on employer’s premises at any time, are overbroad and therefore unlawful. First, the restriction against non-employee access is so broad that it could reasonably be interpreted to encompass union staff. Second, the rule’s categorical prohibition against distributing literature on employer premises at any time is incompatible with the MMBA, as it extends to distribution in non-patient care areas during non-work time. (pp. 56-57.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2868M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right An access rule is unlawful if, on either a facial or as applied basis, it singles out protected conduct or speech, as compared to non-protected activities or speech. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 18-19.) Even if a rule is nondiscriminatory, it 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.) The employer bears the burden of proving that a restriction on access to its premises is: (1) necessary for safe or efficient operations; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (Id. at pp. 26-27.) 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. (Id. at p. 27.) (p. 55.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 1700H | Regents of the University of California 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right University’s policy prohibiting employee organizations and their representatives from using University phones “unless specifically permitted by a collective bargaining agreement” was an unreasonable regulation of the right of access to a means of communication. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 72-74.) more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H | Regents of the University of California 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right University’s new access policy effectively eliminated the possibility of unscheduled meetings between union representatives and employees. An access rule that interferes with an employee organization's ability to effectively use its representatives whose availability is “sporadic and unpredictable” is unreasonable. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 71-72.) more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H | Regents of the University of California 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right The Board found that University’s absolute ban on all demonstrations inside a University building was overbroad and not narrowly drawn to time, place, and manner. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 60-61.) more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H | Regents of the University of California 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right The Board found respondent’s access policies at UCOP did not interfere with the right of employees to be represented by the union where the access restrictions were reasonable, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the parties’ memorandum of understanding. Specifically, respondent’s policy that a union representative identify an employee he or she intended to visit was a reasonable extension of the employer’s authority to require that visitors to its worksites identify themselves and state their business before entering the premises. However, a rule requiring a union representative to identify an employee or employees with whom he or she seeks to contact before permitting access to a non-work area such as a break room or cafeteria would not withstand HEERA scrutiny. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 53-56.) more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H | Regents of the University of California 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right “HEERA provides employee organization representatives, employee and nonemployee alike, with a presumptive right of access to employees at reasonable times in areas where they work. However, the access afforded must be reasonable in light of particular needs of the workplace in question.” (The Regents of the University of California, UCLA Medical Center (1983) PERB Decision No. 329-H, p. 5.) An employer may rebut the presumptive right of access by evidence that a regulation is necessary to prevent disruption of operations. (Id.) An important factor in weighing the right of access against employer regulation of access is the availability of alternative means of access. (Id. at p. 15.) In striking this balance, the Board has also considered the impact of the employer's regulation on the basic labor law principles set forth in the statutes it administers, which are designed to insure effective and nondisruptive organizational communications. (adopting proposed decision at pp. 45-46, 70, 76.) more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H | Regents of the University of California 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right University’s 30-day campus-wide ban of union representative that included public areas and areas where there was no dispute as to representative’s access was overbroad and not narrowly drawn to time, place, and manner. (p. 3 & adopting proposed decision at pp. 63-65.) more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 1700H | Regents of the University of California 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Access rights are within the scope of representation. (p. 2 & adopting proposed decision at p. 52.) more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right A long line of precedent illustrates that otherwise valid access restrictions nonetheless interfere with protected rights if they are discriminatory in either scope or application. “Whatever the occasion or cause, if the limited intrusion into worktime and work areas is permitted, it cannot be denied for other, equally or less intrusive solicitation or concerted employee activities.” (Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 50.) Indeed, PERB has many times applied these principles to find that rules restricting union activity during working time are impermissible when a similar level of non-business activity is permitted. (County of Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2611-M, pp. 3-4; Regents of the University of California (Irvine), supra, PERB Decision No. 2593-H, pp. 8-9.) (p. 44.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right The MMBA affords both “employee and non-employee representatives of employee organizations alike, access to areas in which employees work.” (Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2233-M, p. 8.) The MMBA does not require employee stewards to shoulder the burden of handling all union matters that require physical access to work areas. (p. 37.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Employer’s failure to mention any privacy concerns when denying union’s access request waived the employer’s ability to raise privacy concern as a defense at hearing. (pp. 35-36.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Because an access request is a form of information request and SEIU made a presumptively appropriate request, the County was obligated not to summarily refuse it but rather to raise any concerns it had and attempt in good faith to reach an agreement. (See, e.g., Tulare, supra, PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Unions have a significant task in evaluating the many complaints and issues that employees bring to them and deciding which ones merit a grievance or other action, and on-site inspection is a critical component of this task. (New Surfside Nursing Home, supra, 322 NLRB at p. 535 [while employees can report information to union representative based on their direct observations, the union is entitled to investigate independently before deciding whether employees have raised a meritorious issue that union should pursue]; Gilberton Coal Co. (1988) 291 NLRB 344, 348 [onsite inspection allows the Union to “determine the current accuracy of the employees[’] allegations” regarding health conditions at the employer’s facility].) (pp. 31-32.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right A union’s right to reasonable access includes access to work areas for the purpose of monitoring workplace health and safety conditions. In this regard, an access request is akin to an information request, and there is no dispute that “workplace safety is firmly within the scope of representation.” (City of Santa Maria (2020) PERB Decision No. 2736-M, p. 23, citing International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 275.) (p. 30.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right The availability of non-work areas within or near the workplace where union representatives may meet with employees during their non-work time may be considered when assessing the reasonableness of an employer’s restrictions. (Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2233-M, p. 9.) But the employer must demonstrate “that such alternative venues are a reasonable substitute for more traditional venues.” (Id. at p. 10, citing UCLA Medical Center, supra, PERB Decision No. 329-H.) (p. 29.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Even California public employers providing sensitive services, such as acute patient care and classified national defense research, must narrowly tailor their access rules to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with statutory rights. (UCLA Medical Center, supra, PERB Decision No. 329-H, p. 10; Lawrence Livermore, supra, PERB Decision No. 212-H, pp. 13-14 [rejecting employer’s argument that the presumptive right of access either does not apply or is rebutted by national security requirements].) The Board has previously addressed access rights in workplaces that deal with private information, applying the operative test in a fact-intensive inquiry that carefully considers the sensitive work being performed and the safeguards needed to protect such work while still affording statutory rights to the degree possible. (See, e.g., Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2233-M, p. 9; Lawrence Livermore, supra, PERB Decision No. 212-H, p. 14.) (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Access principles are applied uniformly, irrespective of whether a union’s access charge involves employee representatives, non-employee representatives, or a combination. (p. 27.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2775M | County of San Joaquin 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right The MMBA affords both employee and non-employee representatives of employee organizations access to areas in which employees work. (County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, p. 18.) A union’s presumptive right of access is subject to reasonable regulation. (Regents of the University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1982) PERB Decision No. 212-H, pp. 14-15; State of California (California Department of Corrections) (1980) PERB Decision No. 127-S, p. 6.) It is the employer’s burden to demonstrate that its restriction of a union’s access is reasonable. (Regents of the University of California (2012) PERB Decision No. 2300-H, p. 20, fn. 8.) For an access restriction to be reasonable, the employer must establish two elements: (1) the regulation must be shown to be necessary to the efficient operation of the employer’s business or the safety of its employees and others; and (2) the regulation must be narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with the exercise of statutory rights. (County of Riverside (2012) PERB Decision No. 2233-M, p. 8 (Riverside); see also Lawrence Livermore, supra, PERB Decision No. 212-H, pp. 13-15 & adopting proposed decision at pp. 51-53; Regents of the University of California, University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center (1983) PERB Decision No. 329-H, pp. 4-6 (UCLA Medical Center).) In other words, the inquiry is “whether the regulations established by the employer are properly related to justifiable concerns about disruption of [the employer’s] mission, and whether the rules are narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with the exercise of statutory rights.” (Lawrence Livermore, supra, PERB Decision No. 212-H, p. 15.) (pp. 26-27.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 20 | 06/30/21 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right 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 |
| 2611M | County of Orange 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Employee and non-employee representatives of employee organizations may access employee work areas, subject to reasonable employer regulation. Any such regulation must be both necessary to the employer’s efficient operations or safety of employees or others, and narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with the exercise of statutory rights. Moreover, an employer’s otherwise lawful access restrictions may nevertheless interfere with protected rights when applied discriminatorily against unions or protected activity. (p. 3.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 101 | 12/19/18 |
| 2611M | County of Orange 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right An employer may restrict non-business activities during work time, but it may not single out union activities for special restriction or enforce general restrictions more strictly with respect to union activities. (p. 3.) The employer violated this premise because it was aware of and permitted employee-run social committees to engage in non-business activities during work time but singled out union activity (e.g., soliciting information regarding working conditions or ongoing grievances) as being inappropriate non-business activities during work time. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 101 | 12/19/18 |
| 2611M | County of Orange 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Though a social committee’s activities may support an employer’s efficient operations (e.g., increasing morale, team building, and generating a productive workforce), the employer may not distinguish between such non-business activities and those of the exclusive bargaining representative when there is no significant difference in the nature or extent of the employer’s and union’s activities. Such distinction results in the overbroad, discriminatory application of an otherwise lawful regulation. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 101 | 12/19/18 |
| 2588E | Los Angeles Unified School District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right A public school employer’s e-mail system is an “other means of communication” under EERA section 3543.1, subd. (b), which sets forth employee organizations’ statutory right to access the employer’s premises for communication with public employees. (pp. 6-7.) However, the employee organization’s statutory right does not require a public school employer to send broadcast e-mails to employees on the employee organization’s behalf. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2556M | County of San Bernardino 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Employee organizations that have not been recognized have a right to access non-working areas of an employer’s premises to solicit for union membership and distribute literature to employees during their non-work time. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 114 | 03/06/18 |
| 2300H | Regents of the University of California 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right PERB has held that access rules are negotiable and unilateral changes in those rules are unfair practices under HEERA. This Board has consistently described leafleting to advertise a labor dispute as presumptively protected activity. The Board held that the distribution of leaflets by community college faculty members to members of the public attending the college’s graduation ceremonies was protected conduct under EERA. As in this case, the leaflets criticized the employer’s policies in the context of a labor dispute and were distributed on the college’s property. The right to picket peaceably and truthfully is one of organized labor’s lawful means of advertising its grievances to the public, and as such is guaranteed by the Constitution as an incident of freedom of speech. The same right is protected under EERA, as it is a collective activity both constitutionally protected and long recognized in foundational labor law to be intimately related to the ability of employees to engage in union activities, a right literally conferred by the text of EERA. No less protected is the right to leaflet. Both activities are undertaken to publicize the labor dispute to the public, to garner the public’s support for labor’s position, to demonstrate the strength and support for union demands, to build solidarity among fellow employees, etc. Union access rules are negotiable. Access to the public employer’s property for the purpose of communicating the union’s message implicates a variety of issues that the mediatory influence of collective bargaining is likely to resolve, such as reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, and the designation of places that the employer may legitimately reserve for itself as an area in which it is the only permitted speaker. The regulation at issue here purports to regulate more than traditional access to employees, as its scope reaches to union hand billing the general public and other staff on university property. We find that these broader regulations on union leafleting activity designed to reach both the public and employees are also within the scope of negotiations. A union’s publicizing its dispute over terms and conditions of employment to the public at large as well as to its members and other employees goes to the essence of the employment relationship. Providing information to the public and urging it to support labor’s demands with the public employer is one of the more important levers employees and their representative organizations have in securing demands over wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment. Few subjects could be more closely related to or involved with the employment relationship. The right of access to facilities where employees work is presumptive and employer restrictions on that right must be narrowly drawn. In the absence of facts demonstrating why daily access to break rooms would be disruptive to university operations, the employer may not prevail here by simply saying the union had all the access it needs. Such a position does not meet the standard of a narrowly drawn regulation that avoids overbroad and unnecessary interference. Further, it is not for the employer to determine how much access is “needed” by the union, especially in the absence of evidence that such frequent access was or tended to be disruptive. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 141 | 12/20/12 |
| 2231M | Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Where charge alleged that respondent removed a negotiated provision of the expired memorandum of understanding relating to union access rights and eliminated the Union Time Bank in response to the filing of grievances by individual unit members, such allegations are sufficient to state a prima facie case of interference in that the overall effect of the respondent’s conduct was to discourage employees from utilizing the grievance procedures and asserting their rights under the statutory scheme and, therefore, tended to or did result in harm to employee rights under the Carlsbad interference standard. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 111 | 01/20/12 |
| 2233M | County of Riverside 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right We construe the MMBA to afford employee and non-employee representatives of employee organizations alike, access to areas in which employees work. This access is subject to reasonable employer regulation upon the employer’s showing that a particular regulation is both necessary to the efficient operation of the employer’s business and/or the safety of its employees and others, and narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with the exercise of statutory rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 113 | 01/23/12 |
| 2145M | West Contra Costa Healthcare District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Employer’s requirement that incumbent union’s non-employee organizers sign in and wear an identification badge to access non-public areas of the employer’s hospital did not interfere with the union’s access rights because the hospital imposed the same requirement on other members of the public who wished to access the same areas. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 5 | 11/30/10 |
| 2030M | Omnitrans 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right The MMBA grants unions a right of access to an employer’s premises for the purpose of communicating with employees subject to reasonable time and place regulations by the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 91 | 05/29/09 |
| 2030M | Omnitrans 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right An employer may regulate union activity in a non-work area during non-working time only if the regulation is necessary to maintain order, production or discipline. Assembly room where bus drivers congregated before and after shifts was not a work area because, even though work was occasionally performed in the room, its primary purpose was as a place for employees to engage in non-work activities. Drivers who were on “standby” duty waiting for assignment were not on working time, even though they were paid for the time, because they were not performing any actual work duties. MOU provision that required prior permission for union access to on duty employees did not waive the union’s right to access standby drivers during their paid, non-working time without prior permission. Employer failed to show legitimate business reason for having employee/union officer removed from assembly room because the evidence showed the officer was not disrupting the employer’s operations in any way by speaking to individual drivers about union matters. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 91 | 05/29/09 |
| 1979C | Los Angeles County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563, where the Board held that employees who have access to an employer’s e-mail system as part of their job duties have a right to use that system to engage in EERA-protected communications on nonwork time. * * *An employer’s use of a particular internal means of communication to state its position on labor relations issues does not entitle a union to use that same means, unless the union can show it has no effective alternate means of communicating its position to employees. Employer’s use of broadcast e-mail messages to update employees about ongoing collective bargaining did not require the employer to grant the union an exemption from its policy prohibiting broadcast e-mails so the union could state its views on labor relations issues via broadcast e-mail, especially when the record clearly showed that the union had ample alternate means of communicating with employees regarding collective bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 151 | 10/07/08 |
| 1921E | Desert Community College District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Union meetings on community college district property are protected under EERA sections 3543 and 3543.1. The right of access under section 3543.1(b) is limited to purposes concerning employer-employee relations. The Board has substantially limited an employer’s ability to censor or impose prior restraints upon the content of union communications. The Board has held that “school employer regulation under section 3543.1(b) should be narrowly drawn to cover the time, place and manner of the activity, without impinging on content unless it presents a substantial threat to school operations.” (Richmond Unified School District/Simi Valley Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 99.) The presence of an item entitled “Board of Trustees Election” on a union meeting agenda does not remove the meeting from protection under section 3543.1(b), which provides unions a right of access to employer facilities to hold meetings to discuss employer-employee relations. The District vice principal’s emails seeking to remove an item referencing an upcoming Board of Trustees election from an agenda for a members-only union meeting to be held at the college premises constituted unlawful interference with the protected rights of the employees and the employee organization. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 137 | 08/10/07 |
| 1905M | City of Porterville * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126. * * *The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act authorizes the City to adopt its own reasonable access rules. This provision gives the City a measure of discretion in drafting its own access policy. Denial of access was justified by legitimate business reasons because the union representative had not requested consent according to the City’s access policy, and had sought access to a work area during work time. . more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 98 | 05/10/07 |
| 1891M | City of Los Altos 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right 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 |
| 1854H | Regents of the University of California 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right The University’s removal of union notices was not improper even though other organizations were permitted to post near the elevators because, here, the parties bargained over union access rights, including the posting of union notices. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 156 | 08/29/06 |
| 1507H | Trustees of the California State University 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right A policy that unlawfully restricts union access creates a corresponding interference with employee’s representation rights under HEERA section 3571(a). more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 26 | 01/08/03 |
| 1374S | State of California (Department of Youth Authority) 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Absence of Dills statutory language on right of access is not a defense to State's unilateral change of access rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31059 | 02/28/00 |
| 1339S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right The text of the Dills Act does not explicitly grant employee organizations a right of access to the employer's property for purposes of communication with members. Even absent statutory authorization, it is well established in federal cases that employee organizations may in some circumstances gain access rights to an employer's property. (NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1956) 351 U.S. 105 [38 LRRM 2001].) Such access rights become available in two circumstances: (1) when the usual means of communication are ineffective or unreasonably difficult, or (2) when the employer's prohibition on access is discriminatory on its face or as applied. This rule has been adopted by the PERB. (See State of California (Department of Transportation, et al.) (1981) PERB Decision No. 159b-S; Sierra Sands Unified School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 977; State of California (Department of Personnel Administration, et al.) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1279-S.) The burden of proof in meeting this requirement is on the charging party. Even though union had other means of communication, lack of a private meeting room at least slightly hinders it in doing so and denial of the room is a violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30146 | 08/03/99 |
| 0608E | Long Beach Unified School District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Union may waive right of access by language in contract, so long as there is no serious impairment of those access rights granted by statute; p. 17. Association waived right to object to regulations regarding 24-hour notice of access and management's right to designate meeting locations where contract specifically provided for these two limitations; pp. 17-18. Once Association demonstrates restrictions on presumptive right of access, employer must rebut presumption by demonstrating such access would be disruptive. Here, lack of proof prevented Board from conclusion that regulation is reasonable; p. 26. Where contract specifically precluded access during the conference period because it designated as "worktime", it is presumptively unavailable for access; pp. 18-25. 20-minute duty periods before and after school are defined by contract as part of workday and are unavailable for access. In so finding, the Board reversed Long Beach School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 130, which required a showing that such periods must be "expressly and/or uniformly reserved for preparation" to be considered worktime; pp. 18-25. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18029 | 01/07/87 |
| 1279S | State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration, et al. * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563, where the Board held that employees who have access to an employer’s e-mail system as part of their job duties have a right to use that system to engage in EERA-protected communications on nonwork time. * * *State agency violated the Dills Act when it adopted a policy that allows employees to use the State's electronic mail system for minimal amounts of personal communication so long as the subject of the communication does not pertain to employee organization matters. State agencies violated the Dills Act by discriminatorily applying facially neutral policies in a way that prohibits communication about employee organization business while permitting other personal communication. These discriminatory actions interfered with the rights of employees to participate in the activities of employee organizations and the right of CSEA to communicate with its members. Access rights not described in the statute become available to a union in 2 circumstances: (1) usual means of communication are ineffective or unreasonably difficult; or (2) employers prohibition on access is discriminatory on its face or as applied. Once an employer has opened or unreasonably difficult; or (2) employers prohibition on access is discriminatory on its face or as applied. Once an employer has opened a forum for non-business communication, it cannot prohibit employees from using the same forum for a similar level of communication involving union activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29148 | 08/21/98 |
| 1190E | Elk Grove Unified School District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right No prima facie case of access denial when union failed to show that placing union representative on administrative leave interfered with employee's ability to perform union duties; p. 1, dismissal letter. To establish that an employer interfered with the right to access, the union must allege that the employer imposed objectively unreasonable restriction's on the union's right to access; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28070 | 03/25/97 |
| 1105E | Pomona Unified School District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Government Code section 6254.3 neither part of the EERA nor is it incorporated by reference. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26098 | 05/18/95 |
| 1026S | State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) (International Union of Operating Engineers, Craft-Maintenance Division, Units 12 and 13) 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Unions have a protected right to communicate with its members at work sites which has been found by the Board to exist in its right of access; p. 5; Whether or not other means of communication are available does not deny a particular form of access; p. 6; Only when a particular type of communication is disruptive will the Board look to other means of communication. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25011 | 11/17/93 |
| 0833E | Los Rios Community College District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right EERA provides for access to an employer's facilities only to an employee organization and not to individual employees; pp. 4, 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21160 | 08/10/90 |
| 0729H | California State University, Chico (O'Connell, Johnson, et al.) 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right A non-exclusive employee organization's flyers that were randomly distributed, or "shotgunned" through the CSU internal mail system were not within the definition of "Letter" as defined by federal postal regulations; and therefore Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations Board (1988) 485 U.S. 589, [99 L.Ed.2d 664] is not controlling; pp. 10-11. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20083 | 04/14/89 |
| 0725H | Regents of the University of California (University of California, American Federation of Teachers) 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Access rights under HEERA are restricted by federal Private Express Statutes. These restrictions apply to all unions whether exclusive or not, (pp. 5-7) and, subject to "reasonable regulations" pursuant to Gov. Code section 3568; pp. 8-9. Reversed and remanded by 1st DCA, Case No. A045723. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20065 | 03/21/89 |
| 0721E | Long Beach Unified School District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Union's newsletter bundles fall under the definition of "letter" and are not permitted to be sent through the employer's internal mail system; p. 14. (See Dissent's discussion of reasonableness of its access regulations.) more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20058 | 03/03/89 |
| 0628E | Woodland Joint Unified School District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Restriction on union president's access to transportation office interfered with employee's right to engage in conduct protected by statute; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18121 | 06/30/87 |
| 0601S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration, Developmental Services, and Mental Health); State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (Communications Workers of America/California Association of Psychiatric Technicians) 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Unilateral changes in access requirement of 24 hour notice from the recognized collective bargaining agent's representative is improper where policies are set out in the contract. Unilateral change in telephone use by the union is improper where it amounts to a change in past practice. State may rationally regulate use of meeting rooms; pp. 61-66, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18020 | 12/30/86 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 23 | 06/30/16 |
| 0375E | Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right In providing for a right of access to "other means of communication" besides those explicitly set forth in the subsection b of 3543.1, the legislature did not intend those explicitly cited means of access to be exhaustive; p. 19. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15021 | 01/05/84 |
| 0329H | Regents of the University of California, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right 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 of 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 alernative access is important factor to infections. Employer carries burden of proving disruption would occur. Availability of alernative 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 |
| 0292E | Rio Hondo Community College District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right District's threatened suspension of the statutorily guaranteed employee organization rights of dues deductions, reasonable access, and the right to represent members in grievances constitute separate violations of section 3543.5(a); p. 14. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14091 | 03/08/83 |
| 0254E | San Ramon Valley Unified School District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right EERA section 3543.1(b) grants organizations the right to use employer mail facilities, subject to reasonable regulation; interference with right constitutes violations of EERA sections 3543.5(a) and 3543.5(b); p. 3. Education Code section 7054 does not preclude the employer's distribu- tion of union materials referencing a statewide ballot measure, since the latter does not constitute a "school measure of the district." more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13250 | 10/29/82 |
| 0212H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Subsection 3568 establishes a presumptive right of access for employee organizations. Since no exceptions for national security facilities is set forth in the statute, the Board will not create one; pp. 13-14. A 48-hour notice rule for access to meeting facilities in the open areas of the Lab is unreasonably restrictive; p. 16. The requirement that employee organizations reimburse the University for the cost of escort services utilized pursuant to security regulations is an unreasonable, unjustified tax on the exercise of statutory rights of access; p. 16. Unwillingness of Regents to allow application for top security clearance for union representatives not an unreasonable restriction to organizational access because the screening procedure is costly and time-consuming and alternative sites are available for processing grievance and safety complaints; p. 19. time-consuming and alternative sites are available for processing grievance and safety complaints; p. 19. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13116 | 04/30/82 |
| 0183H | University of California at Berkeley (Wilson) * * * SUPERSEDED first by Decision 183a-H, then by Decision 420-H, and finally by the U.S. Supreme Court, 485 U.S. 589 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right * * * SUPERSEDED first by PERB Decision No. 183a-H, then by PERB Decision No. 420-H, and then by Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1988) 485 U.S. 589. * * *HEERA section 3568 entitles employee organizations to use University internal mail system to send unstamped organizational literature to members. The University may devise an alternative method of distribution so that supervisors will not be required to deliver the material. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13003 | 11/25/81 |
| 0127S | State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Officers Association) 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Applying Carlsbad #89, no interference, discrimination or denial of access found where employer withdrew previous grant of office space and the assistance of inmate clerks at a prevailing institutional wage. Union was still able to distribute literature through the department mail and use bulletin boards, as well as meet with employees concerning grievance; pp. 4-12. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11079 | 05/05/80 |
| 0130E | Long Beach Unified School District 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right Employer's regulations regarding access must be reasonable, i.e., consistent with labor law principles in EERA which ensure effective and nondisruptive organizational communications; prohibition on distribution of and solicitation during 20 minute periods before and after classes unreasonable; rule prohibiting instructional aides from distribution or solicitation during same 20 minute periods unreasonable because those periods not part of workday; requirement that nonemployee union organizers obtain identification cards unreasonable because does not apply to all visitors; limitations on numbers of employees who can meet unreasonable; pp. 4-23. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11098 | 05/28/80 |
| 0948S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 401.04000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Access - Union Right The Dills Act is silent about rights of access from employer organizations. However, PERB decision has held "that a right of access is implicit in the purpose and intent" of the law. (State of California (Department of Corrections) (1980) PERB Decision No. 127-S.); p. 36, proposed dec. Since the public employer cannot exclude members of the public from its place of operations, neither can it exclude employee organizations; p. 36, proposed dec. The right to reasonable regulations extends to mail as well as to physical access. It is against this rule of reasonableness that infringements on access must be measured; p. 37, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23131 | 08/06/92 |