All notes for Subtopic 404.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2613M | County of Santa Clara 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General Directive prohibiting employee from communicating with co-workers about matter for which he was being investigated prevented him from contacting potential witnesses, making inquiries that could help him prepare for investigatory interview, and from assisting the union in representing him. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 104 | 12/21/18 |
| 2567E | Hartnell Community College District 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General Having attempted for more than two weeks to schedule the investigative meeting with Charging Party and his preferred representative, the ALJ appropriately concluded that the employer was not obligated to further delay the meeting, and that a message from its human resources official lawfully deferred to the exclusive representative to determine which of its agents would be available to represent the Charging Party in the investigative meeting. The employer’s message did not interfere with the protected right to choose a representative because, under the circumstances, any choice of a representative was for the exclusive representative and not for the Charging Party to make. (p.8.) To prevail in a case alleging interference, the charging party must show that the employer engaged in conduct that tends to or does result in at least slight harm to rights guaranteed by EERA and that, on balance, the resulting harm to protected rights outweighs any legitimate business justification asserted by the employer. An interference violation may only be found where the pertinent statute provides the rights claimed by the charging party. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 2 | 06/12/18 |
| 2522H | Trustees of the California State University 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General 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 |
| 2452E | Hartnell Community College District 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General Because EERA protects both the employees’ choice of a representative and their representative’s designation of its agents from employer interference, allegation that human resources official told employee that she, rather than employee, would choose employee’s union representative for him constituted prima facie case of interference with protected rights. Employer statements that assert a right to influence or direct employees’ choice of a representative interfere with protected rights, because they convey the impression that engaging in union or other concerted activity is futile. pp. 56-57. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 56 | 09/04/15 |
| 2283E | Jurupa Unified School District 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General Charging party alleges that a memo criticized those employees who, with charging party, had joined together to file through counsel a grievance and complaint seeking to enforce workplace rights. Such alleged conduct by the District’s assistant superintendent for personnel is attributable to the District. Employees reading the memo would understand the District to be hostile to their participation in activity protected by the EERA. We conclude this would result in at least some harm to employee rights. Thus, we conclude that the allegation states prima facie an instance of impermissible interference with employee rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 58 | 08/21/12 |
| 2267M | County of Santa Clara * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2479 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General Employer’s counseling memo instructing employee to follow the chain of command and not to speak to other employees about his “issues and concerns” did not constitute unlawful interference or threat when considered in context. Evidence failed to demonstrate it was reasonably likely statements had a coercive tendency as to protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 6 | 05/25/12 |
| 2141M | City of San Jose 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General Picketing by building inspectors directed at private employers with the object of inducing private employees to refuse to work, shutting down private construction sites, was an unfair pressure tactic in violation of the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 167 | 11/10/10 |
| 2119M | County of Riverside 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General County officials’ statements to union representatives that union’s efforts to organize the County’s temporary program employees would be futile interfered with union’s right to represent employees. Statements did not interfere with employee rights because they were made in private meetings at which no employees were present and record did not establish that statements were conveyed to any employee. County supervisors’ statements during public meeting that County would consider elimination of temporary employee program if union continued its efforts to organize temporary program employees interfered with employee and union rights by discouraging further organizing efforts. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 108 | 06/24/10 |
| 1888E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Okereke) 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General Charging party failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of interference where the University removed notices that were placed in an area beyond the bargained for area. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 70 | 02/27/07 |
| 1854H | Regents of the University of California 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General 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 |
| 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 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General 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. 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 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 |
| 1278E | Long Beach Community College District (California School Employees Association) 404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General Where employer included rival employee organization's severance presentation on the official schedule for a week of mandatory peace officer training on the day before window period began, the Board found that the employer's actions gave the impression that the severance presentation was part of the mandatory training or, at the very least, that the employer supported the severance presentation, in violation of employer's duty of strict neutrality; p. 9. Employer statement that decertification presentation was voluntary was insufficient to undo the effects of the employer's decision to place the decertification presentation on the schedule for mandatory in- service training. Employer made statement just before the start of the decertification presentation but made no effort to retract the offending training schedule and took no other action to assuage the appearance that it supported the decertification effort; pp. 10-11. offending training schedule and took no other action to assuage the appearance that it supported the decertification effort; pp. 10-11. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29147 | 08/14/98 |