All notes for Subtopic 401.07000 – Display of Union Insignia

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2702M City of Sacramento
401.7000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia
A history of union insignia display in the workplace without resulting incidents is relevant to determine whether special circumstances exist (p. 11), and a history of allowing non-union related items on hardhats without incident also weighs against finding special circumstances (p. 14.) An employer need not wait until an actual injury occurs before banning union insignia for safety reasons; but to establish safety-based special circumstances to support such a ban, the employer must present concrete evidence that employee safety is foreseeably threatened by displaying the union insignia and that it has acted consistently with its stated concern. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text.
03/25/20
2702M City of Sacramento
401.7000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia
Contrary to an employer’s stated safety concerns—banning stickers is necessary to prevent damage to employee hardhats—it failed to produce any evidence that the ban was necessary to prevent hardhat damage. Lack of evidence that the employer conducted any regular inspection of the hardhats for damage undermined those concerns. It also allowed employees to affix other items to their hardhats with adhesive materials without any explanation regarding those materials’ effect on the hardhats. (pp. 12-14.) more or view all topics or full text.
03/25/20
2702M City of Sacramento
401.7000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia
PERB considers several factors in determining whether special circumstances exist that would justify a restriction on the right to display union insignia: whether the insignia could jeopardize employee safety, disrupt employee discipline (e.g., exacerbate employee dissention or cause distraction from work demanding great concentration), or negatively affect the employer (e.g., damage machinery, products, or a certain image necessarily projected for the public). Also important is the specific context in which the prohibition was enacted or enforced, the locations involved, and the parties’ past practice. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.
03/25/20
2702M City of Sacramento
401.7000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia
The employer has the burden of establishing that its policy or rule abrogating employees’ right to display union insignia is justified by special circumstances. This analysis is done through a case-by-case approach that considers the particulars of the employer’s operations; the employer must make a concrete, fact-based evidentiary showing that special circumstances exist. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.
03/25/20
2702M City of Sacramento
401.7000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia
The right to wear union insignia in the workplace is not unlimited and may be subject to reasonable regulation. However, any restriction on the right to display union insignia and messages in the workplace is presumptively invalid; it is permitted only if special circumstances exist justifying the prohibition. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.
03/25/20
2616H Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association)
401.7000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia
Employees have a right to wear union insignia and buttons at their workplace. Restrictions on the right are lawful only if the employer proves they are justified by special circumstances. more or view all topics or full text.
4311012/21/18
2616H Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association)
401.7000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia
To show special circumstances, employer need not prove actual disruption, though evidence of disruption or lack thereof is a relevant factor. General, speculative, isolated, or conclusory evidence of potential disruption does not amount to special circumstances. more or view all topics or full text.
4311012/21/18
2393M County of Sacramento
401.7000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia
Absent special circumstances, firefighters have the statutorily protected right under the MMBA to wear public safety uniform apparel (t-shirts and caps) bearing the union logo while on duty; a “no union logo” blanket policy is unlawful because it interferes with firefighters in the exercise of their right to participate in the activities of an employee organization of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations. more or view all topics or full text.
395410/16/14
1026S State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) (International Union of Operating Engineers, Craft-Maintenance Division, Units 12 and 13)
401.7000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia
The protected right to wear union buttons is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable regulation. If special circumstances exist, then the employer may be within its rights to limit or prohibit the wearing of buttons by employees; p. 4, proposed dec. Special circumstances justifying a prohibition of union buttons or insignia exist where buttons could jeopardize employee's safety; damaged machinery or products; exacerbate employee dissension; cause distraction from work demanding great concentration; disrupt the uniformity, discipline or appearance of neutrality among para-military law enforcement employees: or damage the image to the public by the employees coming into contact with the public in the absence of a protected purpose; pp. 18-19, proposed dec. Wearing of buttons not protected by first amendment. Wearing of buttons not protected by first amendment. more or view all topics or full text.
182501111/17/93