All notes for Subtopic 408.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2822E | Victor Valley Union High School District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; 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 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Regardless of how an employer characterizes an interview, if an interview serves to elicit incriminating or merely negative evidence with the potential to impact the employment relationship, then it is investigatory for purposes of the Dills Act. Context is the guiding question. (p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General To prove a violation of the right to representation in an investigatory or disciplinary interview, the charging party must establish that: (1) the employee or representative invoked the right to representation on behalf of the employee; (2) for an investigatory meeting; (3) which the employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action; and (4) the employer denied the request. Because California law affords employee organizations a statutory right to represent employees in their employment relations, the same elements can be used to demonstrate that an employer violated both an employee’s right to be represented and the union’s right to represent the employee. (p. 25.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Both PERB and California courts recognize that, in several respects, the language of our public sector bargaining laws is “considerably broader” than the federal law on which NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251, 256 rests. (p. 25.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2652E | Contra Costa Community College District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General A union has a right to sufficient information regarding alleged wrongdoing to enable a union representative to represent an employee in a meaningful manner during an investigatory interview, but the union does not obtain the right to an underlying written complaint until after the initial investigatory interview. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 18 | 06/26/19 |
| 2599E | San Bernardino Community College District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General An employer violates an employee’s right to union representation when it discontinues oral questioning following the employee’s request for representation, but directs the employee to prepare a written statement concerning the matter under investigation. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 85 | 12/05/18 |
| 2599E | San Bernardino Community College District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Faced with a valid request for representation in an investigatory interview, an employer must accede to the request, give the employee the option of continuing without representation, or discontinue the interview, regardless of whether the employer is seeking new information or merely to confirm information previously provided by the employee. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 85 | 12/05/18 |
| 2599E | San Bernardino Community College District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General In order to challenge denial of Weingarten rights, employee was not required to disobey an unlawful directive to proceed without representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 85 | 12/05/18 |
| 2567E | Hartnell Community College District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; 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 |
| 2532C | Sonoma County Superior Court 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General The right of representation on “all matters of employer-employee relations” is not limitless and is not a license to turn the workplace into a terrain where no conversation can occur between management and employees without a union representative being present. The right does not apply to run-of-the-mill shop floor conversations or meetings to provide work directives. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 6 | 06/27/17 |
| 2409C | Sonoma County Superior Court 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General The right to representation in all matters of employer-employee relations includes the right to have a union representative present at an interactive process meeting upon the employee’s request. There is a right to represent and be represented at grievance-type meetings, regardless of whether the circumstances are “highly unusual,” because of the rights guaranteed by EERA sections 3540, 3543(a) and 3543.1(a). EERA and other statutes PERB administers have as their purpose the improvement of employer-employee relations and communication between employees and public agency management through representation by employee organizations on all matters of employee-employer relations. Such purpose cannot be achieved unless employees have a right to summon their employee organization representatives to represent them in meetings convened to discuss enforcement of the CBA. The FEHA regulations governing reasonable accommodation and the interactive process provide numerous protections for the employee. The interactive process therefore presents opportunities for a representative to assist the employee in the process of obtaining an accommodation. The representative can also serve an important function in explaining to the employee the employer’s rights and the possible consequences of refusing offered accommodations. The union’s right to represent in the interactive process attaches only if the employee requests union representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 88 | 01/13/15 |
| 2222M | City and County of San Francisco 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General If the purpose of an employer-employee meeting is solely to present to the employee a memo conveying the employer’s final determination on discipline, and is not investigatory and not otherwise extraordinary, the employee has no right to union representation at the meeting. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 89 | 11/23/11 |
| 2285S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by by Trustees of the California State University (Northridge) (2019) PERB Decision No. 2687-H 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Trustees of the California State University (Northridge) (2019) PERB Decision No. 2687-H. * * *Both statement to union steward conducting union investigation into alleged misconduct by a supervisor for a potential grievance that she could find herself under investigation for impeding employer’s investigation and issuance of cease and desist order constituted at least “slight harm” to employee organizational rights. In balancing competing interests, interference with employee organizational rights outweighs business justification proffered by employer for its conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 72 | 09/17/12 |
| 2267M | County of Santa Clara * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2479 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; 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. No Weingarten violation established, where employee failed to establish that he made a request for union representation or that the meeting was investigatory in nature. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 6 | 05/25/12 |
| 2166M | Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Charging party’s claim that his employer denied him access to union representation because the agency does not include temporary employees in the bargaining unit, does not state a prima facie case of interference. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 49 | 02/25/11 |
| 2167M | Antelope Valley Hospital District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Nothing contained in the MMBA requires that public employers provide grievants with a mediator or utilize a mediator as part of a grievance procedure. While MMBA may provide individual employees the right to file grievances on their own behalf, nothing contained in the MMBA requires that an employer process an employee’s grievance. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 47 | 02/25/11 |
| 2090M | County of Riverside * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495. * * *Employee had no right to representation by a private attorney at an investigatory interview. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 45 | 12/31/09 |
| 2058M | San Bernardino County Public Defender 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General An employee who is required to attend an investigatory interview is entitled to union representation if the employee has a reasonable basis to believe discipline may result from the meeting. In order to establish a violation of this right, the charging party must demonstrate: (a) the employee requested representation; (b) for an investigatory meeting; (c) which the employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action; and (d) the employer denied the request. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 148 | 09/03/09 |
| 1935E | Los Banos Unified School District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Employees are entitled to union representation for investigatory interviews. In order to establish a violation of the right, the charging party must demonstrate: (a) the employee requested representation; (b) for an investigatory meeting; (c) which the employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action; and (d) the employer denied the request. The key inquiry is whether the interview was investigatory and of the type that might lead to disciplinary action. Although an employee is entitled to union representation for investigatory interviews, the employee is not entitled to demand a specific union representative. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 17 | 12/21/07 |
| 1905M | City of Porterville * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Grossmont Union High School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2126. * * *The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act provides a claim for interference with employee organization rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 98 | 05/10/07 |
| 1853H | Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General * * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. * * *An employee required to attend an investigatory interview with the employer is entitled to union representation where the employee has a reasonable basis to believe discipline may result from the meeting. In order to establish a violation of this right, the charging party must demonstrate: (a) the employee requested representation, (b) for an investigatory meeting, (c) which the employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action; and (d) the employer denied the request. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 155 | 08/29/06 |
| 1843H | Regents of the University of California 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General The charge failed to allege that union representation was requested and denied. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 124 | 05/18/06 |
| 1807M | Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Mauriello) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General When employee fails to request representation at informal meeting, it is not the District’s responsibility to inform employee of his right to representation. District could not have denied employee right to be represented when he did not request representation; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 51 | 01/13/06 |
| 1766M | City of Monterey 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General The City unlawfully designated the union’s attorney as Trujillo’s representative. It is well-established that an employee organization has the right to designate its own representatives in dealing with the employer. The MMBA precludes the Brown Act restriction of employee organization representatives imposed by the City Council. Even under a reasonableness standard, excluding McCormick while permitting the City’s representative and chief witness to remain in the hearing was unreasonable. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 130 | 05/20/05 |
| 1762S | State of California (Department of Consumer Affairs) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Under the Dills Act, Weingarten does not confer a right to representation by private counsel instead of her exclusive representative because Weingarten rights are grounded in the employee’s right to participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations and the corresponding right of employee organizations to represent their members in their employment relations with public school employers. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 121 | 04/15/05 |
| 1648E | Lake Elsinore Unified School District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Given the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the victimization of another teacher and the formal nature of the investigation, it was reasonable for Ausman to believe that discipline could result from the interview notwithstanding the District’s assurance that the interview would not lead to discipline. The belief was compounded by the alleged hostile demeanor displayed by the District’s attorney during the interview and validated by the resulting discipline imposed upon Ausman.) (Regardless of whether the discipline element existed at the onset of the meeting the District may not discipline Ausman after assuring her that no discipline would result from the interview. While it is true that an employer is not required to inform an employee of her Weingarten rights, once the employee has made a request for representation during an interview and the employer refuses the request, stating that no discipline would ensue, then the employer may not impose discipline as a result of the interview. Otherwise an employee must repeatedly ask for representation or place herself in a difficult situation in which the union’s ability to represent her is weakened. Such a consequence does not serve the Supreme Court’s purpose in Weingarten. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 185 | 06/23/04 |
| 1658H | Trustees of the California State University 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Employer policy that fails to inform employees of Weingarten rights is not unlawful since nothing mandates that an employer affirmatively inform employees of right to representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 199 | 07/13/04 |
| 1628M | City of Santa Barbara 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General No Weingarten violation where employer never refused to allow employee representative during meetings. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 150 | 05/14/04 |
| 1519H | Regents of the University of California (Los Alamos National Laboratory) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Under the Weingarten standard, if the purpose of an employer-employee meeting is to present a final disciplinary memo and is not investigatory, the employee has no right to union representation at the meeting. However, LANL allowed Enter to have representation at the meeting, though not the representative of her choice. These facts do not allege a prima facie case of interference under HEERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 67 | 05/07/03 |
| 1481E | Berkeley Unified School District * * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General * * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C, where the Board held that the right to representation under public sector statutes is broader than in private sector, and includes the right to have a union representative present upon the employee’s request at an interactive process meeting convened to explore possible reasonable accommodations to an employee’s disability. * * *“Weingarten” rights not implicated by employer’s refusal to allow presence of union representative at meeting requested by employees, where there were no allegations indicating a disciplinary purpose, or existence of “highly unusual circumstances.” more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33071 | 05/15/02 |
| 1297S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Although representation is denied if a union representative present at a meeting is prohibited from speaking, representative was not attempting to represent employee while attempting to ask questions. The main focus of the questions was a potential unilateral change, not the issue raised by the employer during the meeting. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30010 | 10/22/98 |
| 1274E | Los Rios Community College District (Deglow) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General In order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent's conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under EERA. The statutory right of self-representation falls short of the right to resort to the arbitration process. Under the statute and Board precedent, this contractual limitation does not violate charging party's section 3543 rights, and this allegation must be dismissed. District's agreement to contract language which denies employees the right to have a representative of the employee's choice in grievance meetings fails to state a prima facie violation; pursuant to Chaffey, No. 202 and despite Valley of the Moon, No. 1165. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29124 | 07/20/98 |
| 1164E | Barstow Unified School District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General No reasonable perception of investigatory interview leading to discipline or highly unusual circumstances where meeting was called without warning to employee, employer remarks that conference concerned a student problem, remarks were confrontational, no comments hinted at possible discipline and no discipline followed. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27125 | 08/07/96 |
| 0893H | California State University, Long Beach (California State Employees Association) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Right to representation attaches where employer's conduct goes beyond informing the employee of, or acting upon, a previously made disciplinary decision. Right to representation attaches where employer (1) seeks facts or evidence in support of disciplinary action; (2) attempts to have employee "admit his alleged wrongdoing or to sign a statement to that effect; or (3) seeks to have employee "sign statements relating to such other matters as workmen's compensation"; pp. 19-20, proposed dec. Once employee makes a valid request for union representation, employer has a choice of one of three options: (1) grant the request; (2) dispense with or discontinue the interview; or (3) offer employee the choice of continuing the interview without union representation or of having no interview at all; p. 20, proposed dec. having no interview at all; p. 20, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22123 | 07/23/91 |
| 0690S | State of California (Department of Forestry) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Right to representative in investigatory interview which employee reasonably believes may result in discipline or in highly unusual circumstances. Right arises only in situations where the employee requests representation. No affirmative obligation on the part of the employer to inform employees of Weingarten rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19122 | 06/30/88 |
| 0659E | Los Angeles Unified School District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Viewing entire context, district unlawfully discouraged and interfered with bilingual education aides' seeking the assistance of their union where, in a state of anger, one of the principals made series of implied threats such as: she wanted them to come to her first with their problems before involving the union; asked why an employee had not come to her first before seeking union assistance; stated her desire that employees come directly to her with problems "because she didn't like them to go outside of her jurisdiction;" and called one employee a "troublemaker" for bringing in the union. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19049 | 03/16/88 |
| 0301E | Fremont Union High School District 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General As employees request for representation was clearly transmitted to the supervisors who called and met with employee, employee did not waive her representational rights; p. 8. Failure to renew request for representation does not constitute a waiver when it would have been futile to renew the request; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14130 | 04/06/83 |
| 0998H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Berkeley) 408.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; In General Employee not entitled to representation where employer is merely informing him of previously determined disciplinary action; pp. 3-4, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24106 | 05/26/93 |