All notes for Subtopic 404.02000 – Statements

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2567E Hartnell Community College District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
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.
43206/12/18
2522H Trustees of the California State University
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
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.
4115003/20/17
2452E Hartnell Community College District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
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.
405609/04/15
2465S State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
Employer violated the Dills Act by issuance of an overbroad directive to an employee to cease sending e-mails to other nurses. more or view all topics or full text.
4011012/30/15
2283E Jurupa Unified School District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
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.
08/21/12
2267M County of Santa Clara * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2479
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
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.
05/25/12
2119M County of Riverside
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
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.
3410806/24/10
1841M City of Fresno
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
No interference where union fails to show coercion or interference. City letter to employees does not indicate that layoffs will occur unless union signs contract with no salary increases. more or view all topics or full text.
3012605/18/06
1264E Ventura County Community College District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
Once an exclusive representative is selected, the employer must refrain from bargaining directly with bargaining unit employees. However the employer does have a free speech right. An employer's speech does not generally violate the EERA, unless the speech contains a treatment of reprisal or promise of benefit; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
222909105/12/98
1263H Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
Threats are deemded to be interference with portected rights under section 3571 because they tend to or do result in harm to employee rights; p. 43; In general, whether particular comments constitute an unlawful threat depends on the circumstances in which they occurred. A statement may be considered an implied threat of adverse action, depending on the manner in which it was delivered and other surrounding circumstances; p. 45. Although employees could reasonably have inferred employer's statement that employees "could lose their jobs" if they elevated a protest regarding sick leave policy carried the threat of dismissal, statement was not unlawful because it was excusable under the circumstances; pp. 45-46. more or view all topics or full text.
222909004/28/98
1179S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees)
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
The employer may not solicit employees to withdraw from union membership, but may bring to employees' attention their right to resign if the communication is free of threat and coercion or promise of benefit; p. 4, warning letter. Employer's statement of opinion regarding the reasons for lack of progress in negotiations although possibly incomplete and/or misleading does not constitute prima facie evidence of bad faith bargaining as long as the communication is not threatening and coercive; p. 5, p. 6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
212801712/04/96
0834E Chula Vista City School District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
Statements by school administrators regarding the progress of negotiations, including some statements which could be construed as putting the blame for salary situation on the association, constituted protected free speech. Case contains thorough analysis of employer free speech defense; pp. 5-14. more or view all topics or full text.
142116208/16/90
0624E Inglewood Unified School District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
Threat of retaliation for filing grievances; later retraction inadequate. more or view all topics or full text.
111811406/23/87
0622E Riverside Unified School District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
No threat in view of surrounding circumstances. more or view all topics or full text.
111810706/11/87
0611E Los Angeles Unified School District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
Comment made by supervisor during grievance meeting not found to be threat, but found to interfere with employee's right to pursue his grievance and thus violated EERA 3543.5(a). more or view all topics or full text.
111804201/28/87
0533E Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
Employer statements at mandatory meetings found to interfere with employee rights where employer conditioned future benefits on waiver of right to choose representative. more or view all topics or full text.
91623706/09/85
0287S State of California (Department of Real Estate)
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
Since grievance was granted, Board found that respondent's response did not have a tendency to chill or interfere with employee's right to file grievances in the future; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
71408002/24/83
0215E Barstow Unified School District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
District's misrepresentation to employees of its authority to rescind union statutory rights interferes with rights to participate in activities of employee organization. Violation of EERA section 3543.5(a) to threaten to rescind such rights, but no violation of 3543.5(b) to threaten such. more or view all topics or full text.
61313606/11/82
0188E John Swett Unified School District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
District agent's chastisement of employee who conducted a poll among employees which caused dissension among faculty improper interference with right of employee to engage in protected activity. Certain statements of District agent went beyond bounds of operational necessity and had a coercive meaning viewed in overall context rather than being a legitimate problem-solving conversation; pp. 6-7. more or view all topics or full text.
61301812/21/81
0061E Clovis Unified School District
404.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
Charging party failed to prove that superintendent's speeches concerning the possible effects of collective bargaining threatened, interfered with, restrained and coerced employees; unnecessary to discuss whether speeches constitutionally protected or whether district had intent to interfer; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text.
2215908/07/78