All notes for Subtopic 405.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2747M | City of San Diego 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General In evaluating whether employer speech constitutes interference with protected rights, “the Board will look to the surrounding circumstances in which employer speech occurs, including the employer’s power to control terms and conditions of employment and the economic dependence of employees on the employer, to determine whether, when viewed in context, employer speech conveys a threat of reprisal or force, a promise of benefit or a preference for one employee organization over another.” (Hartnell Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2452, p. 25.) E-mail from manager to unit member fell outside the range of permissible employer speech in two respects. First, it was coercive in that it suggested that employees may lose desirable assignments due to protected activity. Next, management e-mail suggested that employee might avoid adverse action and/or obtain preferential treatment for opposing union leadership. It is of no consequence whether unit member shared manager’s e-mails with any other employees or Union representatives. Manager’s coercion was unlawful even if no one other than unit member receiving e-mail knew of it. (See, e.g., Claremont Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2654, pp. 19-24 [district’s conduct interfered with a single employee’s statutory rights]; Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834, p. 13 [a brief statement made only to one person is sufficient to support an interference claim].) Furthermore, employer’s e-mail also tended to interfere with others’ protected conduct given the possibility that unit member might forward it to other employees or share the message contained in the e-mail. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2522H | Trustees of the California State University 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; 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 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General Employer statements asserting a right to influence or direct the employees’ choice of a representative are impliedly coercive, because they convey the impression that engaging in union or other concerted activity is futile. 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 56 | 09/04/15 |
| 2387M | City of Oakland 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General To fully effectuate the MMBA’s purpose of “promot[ing] full communication between pubic employers and their employees” the employer should be free to speak its mind, without incurring liability for every impulsive act or intemperate remark by one of its managers or representatives. Generally, an employer’s expression or disseminate of views, arguments or opinions shall not constitute, or be evidence of an unfair labor practice unless such expression contains a threat of reprisal, force, or promise of benefit or expresses a preference for one employee organization over another employee organization. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 23 | 08/04/14 |
| 2453E | Cabrillo Community College District 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General A finding of interference, coercion or restraint does not require evidence that any employee subjectively felt threatened or intimidated or was in fact discouraged from participating in protected activity; rather the inquiry is an objective one which asks whether, under the circumstances, an employee would reasonably be discouraged from engaging in protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 57 | 09/17/15 |
| 2267M | County of Santa Clara * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2479 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2479. * * *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 |
| 2177H | Regents of the University of California (Irvine) * * * Overruled by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision 2632-M 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General * * * OVERRULED by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2632-M, where the Board held that an employer who automatically and pre-emptively excludes union-represented employees from an otherwise negotiable benefit granted to unrepresented employees, unlawfully discriminates and interferes with protected rights. * * *An employer’s statement interferes with employee rights when it contains a threat of reprisal or force, or promise of benefit. Employer’s communications via e-mail and website about a bonus paid only to non-represented employees were not coercive because they did not contain a threat or promise, and no threat or promise could be implied from the circumstances surrounding the communications. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 70 | 03/29/11 |
| 2119M | County of Riverside 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General County threatened to consider elimination of its temporary employee program if union continued its efforts to organize temporary program employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 108 | 06/24/10 |
| 2031M | Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Roseville (2016) PERB Decision No. 2505-M 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by City of Roseville (2016) PERB Decision No. 2505-M. * * *Employer coercively threatened employees with layoff in violation of MMBA section 3506 when, after employees filed unit modification petition, employer told employees that there would be layoffs if they went with the union. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 92 | 05/29/09 |
| 1791E | Los Angeles Unified School District 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General The request to bring the log book, to wait in the electrical shop and the suggestion that Kahn quit if he cannot talk to his supervisor do not constitute threats and so Kahn did not state a prima facie case for interference. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 32 | 12/29/05 |
| 1508E | San Marcos Unified School District 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General District unlawfully interfered with protected rights by threatening to discipline employees who engaged in non-disruptive informational picketing. District’s threat to discontinue dues deductions unlawfully interfered with both employee rights and union rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 27 | 01/16/03 |
| 1650E | Empire Union School District 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General Employer’s reprimand of employee for taking workplace issues directly to her union unlawfully interfered with employee’s right to file grievances. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 188 | 06/29/04 |
| 1355S | California State Employees Association (Hutchinson) 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General Statements of intentions to pursue legal remedies is protected speech and do not constitute an illegal threat; p. 6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30177 | 10/07/99 |
| 1048E | Los Rios Community College District (Deglow) 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General The employer's disparaging remarks about the charging party was not interference with the charging party's exercise of protected rights; p. 4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25098 | 06/01/94 |
| 0954S | State of California (Franchise Tax Board) 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General Source of information that employer has discriminated against or interfered with a employee's exercise of protected activity deemed irrelevant to the determination of harm. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23164 | 10/21/92 |
| 0834E | Chula Vista City School District 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General 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. | 14 | 21162 | 08/16/90 |
| 0611E | Los Angeles Unified School District 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General 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. | 11 | 18042 | 01/28/87 |
| 1953M | Carmichael Recreation and Park District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *Charging Party failed to meet its burden of proving that a cartoon shown to employees harmed their rights, constituting unlawful interference, as the Board found the two employees’ beliefs that the cartoon was threatening and retaliatory were unreasonable. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 69 | 04/17/08 |
| 0292E | Rio Hondo Community College District 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General Because a threat to punatively suspend statutory rights tends to undermine the status of an exclusive representative and has chilling effect on employee activity, the threat to suspend such rights in an emergency resolution constitutes a violation of EERA; pp. 13-14. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14091 | 03/08/83 |
| 0259E | Sacramento City Unified School District 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General Statement that a union is weak and a waste of money contains no threat of reprisal; p. 4. Supervisor's expression of personal opinion on strike contains no threat of reprisal; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14005 | 11/18/82 |
| 0075E | San Francisco Unified School District 405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General Infringement of employees rights not redeemed because governing board did not adopt individual contracts, since threats also unlawful; pp. 12-13. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2203 | 10/03/78 |