All notes for Subtopic 406.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3048M |
City of Novato
406.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH STRIKES AND PICKETING: LOCKOUTS; In General
Neither the public nature of picketing nor the fact that the union and media outlets post images of picketers defeats an otherwise valid claim based on surveillance or the appearance thereof. PERB precedent recognizes that an employer’s surveillance or the appearance thereof tends to intimidate employees from engaging in protected activity, even when the protected activity is public facing. (See, e.g., Palomar Health (2024) PERB Decision No. 2895-M, pp. 44-45 (Palomar) [leafletting patrons at a public facility’s front entrance].) This is consistent with other decisions in which PERB has noted that employers are unique in that their control over discipline makes their conduct more likely to discourage protected activity. (San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.) (2020) PERB Decision No. 2744, p. 23.) Also instructive is F.W. Woolworth Co. (1993) 310 NLRB 1197 (Woolworth), cited with approval in Palomar, supra, PERB Decision No. 2895-M, p. 43 and County of San Bernardino (2018) PERB Decision No. 2556-M, pp. 20-21. In Woolworth, even though the union had notified local media that employees would be leafletting store entrances, resulting in at least one television spot that included interviews with employees engaged in leafletting, the National Labor Relations Board found the employer liable for unlawfully photographing and video recording the leafletting. (Woolworth, supra, 310 NLRB 1197-1198 [affording little weight to the fact that the union chose to publicize its protected activities]; see also National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. v. National Labor Relations Bd. (D.C. Cir. 1998) 156 F.3d 1268, 1272 [upholding surveillance violation despite fact that union invited local media to attend rally]; John Ascuaga’s Nugget (1990) 298 NLRB 524, 554 fn. 105 [fact that media reporters and photographers were covering an event did not detract from conclusion that surveillance by employer tended to chill protected activity].) (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
08/12/26 | ||
| 2761M |
County of San Joaquin
406.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH STRIKES AND PICKETING: LOCKOUTS; In General
A California public sector employer cannot lockout or permanently replace its employees. (Fremont Unified School District (1990) 29 PERB Order No. IR-54, pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 92 | 04/12/21 |
| 2536M |
City and County of San Francisco
406.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH STRIKES AND PICKETING: LOCKOUTS; In General
Local rule requiring dismissal of employees who refused to cross a picket line, and memorandum referring to this rule, were inherently destructive of employee rights to engage in a sympathy strike. more or view all topics or full text. |
42 | 14 | 06/30/17 |
| 2418M |
Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority
406.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH STRIKES AND PICKETING: LOCKOUTS; In General
The right to strike is fundamental to the statutory scheme of collective bargaining between equal partners. In the absence of some means of equalizing the parties’ respective bargaining positions, such as a credible strike threat, both sides are less likely to bargain in good faith, which, in turn, leads to unsatisfactory and acrimonious labor relations and ironically to more and longer strikes. Strikes by public employees are not illegal, unless statutorily prohibited, or unless there has been a clear showing that the strike poses a substantial and imminent threat to public health and safety. Strikes and strike-related conduct may also be statutorily protected by the MMBA and other California public-sector labor relations statutes. An employer may not impose terms that waive or limit this right. The Board overruled Compton Unified School District (1987) PERB Order No. IR-50 to the extent that it holds there is no statutory right to strike in protest of an employer’s unfair practices. more or view all topics or full text. |
39 | 133 | 03/30/15 |
| 1822E |
Santee Elementary School District
406.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH STRIKES AND PICKETING: LOCKOUTS; In General
Threatening discipline for engaging in “other such strike-related type activities” is interference because of its ambiguity, possibility of broad interpretation in the future and its resulting chilling effect on employee protected rights. more or view all topics or full text. |
30 | 72 | 02/22/06 |
| 1725E |
Hilmar Unified School District
406.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH STRIKES AND PICKETING: LOCKOUTS; In General
Statutorily protected rights, such as the right to engage in non-disruptive informational picketing, can be divested by employees or their exclusive representative by a clear and unmistakable waiver. The Association waived its right to hold an informational meeting after a scheduled mediation session when the Association’s representative committed to the District not to hold the meeting at that time. The District therefore did not interfere with the Association’s rights by threatening to cancel a scheduled mediation session if the Association proceeded with its informational meeting in front of District offices. The District interfered with the Association president’s rights by attempting to bar the Association from directly contacting its health plan administrator. The Association has a duty to ensure that unit members were informed of the changes in the new health plans under consideration because it is entitled to information sufficient to enable it to understand and intelligently discharge its duty to represent bargaining unit members. more or view all topics or full text. |
29 | 35 | 12/15/04 |
| 1508E |
San Marcos Unified School District
406.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH STRIKES AND PICKETING: LOCKOUTS; In General
District unlawfully interfered with protected rights by threatening to discipline employees who engaged in non-disruptive informational picketing. more or view all topics or full text. |
27 | 27 | 01/16/03 |