All notes for Subtopic 402.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2822E | Victor Valley Union High School District 402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General Where a charging party alleges a respondent has interfered with protected activities via litigation, the charging party faces an extra hurdle that is not present in other interference cases: the charging party must establish that the respondent acted without any reasonable basis and for an unlawful purpose. PERB applies private sector labor law principles finding that when an interference claim is based on the employer’s conduct during litigation discovery, the employer’s interest in acquiring the information sought must be balanced against the impact disclosing the information would have on statutorily-protected rights. PERB adopted the three-part test in Guess?, Inc. (2003) 339 NLRB 432 as the legal standard for determining whether deposition questions interfere with protected rights under the PERB-administered statutes: First, the questioning must be relevant. Second, if the questioning is relevant, it must not have an illegal objective. Third, if the questioning is relevant and does not have an illegal objective, the employer’s interest in obtaining this information must outweigh the employees’ protected rights. Given this broad scope of discovery in teacher dismissal proceedings, PERB could not conclude that the District’s questions were plainly irrelevant to material issues in the dismissal proceeding. PERB did not need to resolve whether the questioning had an illegal objective because it would not change the outcome of the inquiry. PERB found the District’s interest in obtaining the information did not outweigh the president’s and bargaining unit employees’ confidentiality interests, because inquiring into employees’ communications with union representatives chills their exercise of protected rights and the District did not show it had no other means of obtaining the information sought. more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 11 | 06/14/22 |
| 2586E | Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez) 402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General An employer does not commit unlawful interference when it investigates an employee based upon a facially valid complaint of misconduct, even if the alleged misconduct occurs during the employee’s exercise of arguably protected activity, provided that (i) the nature of the complaint legitimately calls into question whether the employee conduct was protected, and (ii) if the employer acquires information indicating that the alleged conduct was protected, the employer immediately ceases the investigation and notifies all affected employees regarding its outcome. Once the employer has sufficient information to determine that the employee’s conduct did not lose its protected status, continuing the investigation is an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E | Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez) 402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General Unlawful interference where employer initiates investigation, and corresponding threat of discipline, based solely upon an employee’s email, not after receipt of a facially valid third-party complaint, without taking any time to factually investigate whether the email constituted protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E | Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez) 402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General In balancing the competing interests, interference with employee rights outweighs the employer’s proffered business justifications where the employer compounds its error by never informing the employee that it had concluded its investigation and would not impose discipline, thus leaving the employee in an uncertain state and further chilling his protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2602M | City of Commerce 402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General Interviews of employees who have been identified as union witnesses in an arbitration hearing interfere with employee and union rights because employees were not assured their participation was voluntary, and employer inquired into union’s arbitration strategy. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 89 | 12/11/18 |
| 2595E | William S. Hart Union High School District 402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General Questioning a union steward about whether employees had complained to her about another employee interfered with employee’s right to serve as a union steward and employee rights to confer with their union steward. An employer’s legitimate investigation into alleged wrongdoing cannot include quizzing the shop steward about the substance of communications between employees and their union representatives, thereby deputizing the union as the employer’s agent for conducting disciplinary investigations. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 74 | 11/09/18 |
| 2595E | William S. Hart Union High School District 402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General When an employer’s questions veer into matters protected by EERA, it is the employer’s obligation to assure the employee that his or her response is voluntary. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 74 | 11/09/18 |
| 2361M | County of Merced 402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General The harm to employee’s and union’s rights lies in the potential chilling effect the employer’s interrogation of employee regarding identity of employee informant has on employees’ discussions with their union representative about matters protected under the MMBA. The County interfered with employee’s exercise of rights protected under the MMBA when its agents ordered employee to reveal the name of the bargaining unit member who informed the union of his safety concerns arising from the jail yard fight. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 140 | 03/25/14 |
| 0305H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) 402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General No interference with protected rights where casual "shop floor" conversation did not constitute an unlawful interrogation or unlawful threat; pp. 6-7. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14139 | 04/28/83 |