All notes for Subtopic 408.03000 – Investigatory Interviews

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2660S * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * State of California (Office of the Inspector General)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
The following facts demonstrated the investigatory nature of the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) interviews of correctional officers: OIG coordinated with local prison management to have the officers made available for the interviews, usually through issuance of direct orders for the officers to report at a specified time and place. OIG went so far as to ask local wardens to direct officers to attend and participate in the interviews. It held the interviews at the officers’ job sites, in office spaces that it arranged for with management, rather than at a neutral or offsite location. OIG gave the officers little to no advance notice of the interviews or their subject matter, and while the deputy inspector generals told the officers the interviews were voluntary, the subpoenas clearly indicated otherwise. Nor did the officers have time to object to the subpoenas since the deputy inspector general proceeded with the interviews on the spot. Contrary to OIG’s assertion, not all of the officers interviewed understood the different functions of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and OIG, or even that OIG was distinct from CDCR. Given OIG and the union’s acrimonious history, as evidenced by some of OIG’s statements from the 2015 Special Review Report, the officers had particular reason to be vigilant when confronted with a deputy inspector general with only a minimum of notice and no background information whatsoever. In this context, the officers could have reasonably feared that they or their colleagues faced punitive action as a result of the interviews, particularly because the interviews covered topics which exposed officers to potential for discipline for failure to report their own or others’ misconduct. The Board found a reasonable basis for such a belief notwithstanding the deputy inspector generals’ caveats that the interviews were part of a review as opposed to an investigation and therefore would not serve as the basis for any discipline. (p. 26.) more or view all topics or full text.
08/15/19
2660S * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * State of California (Office of the Inspector General)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
An investigatory or disciplinary interview falls within the broad definition of “all matters of employer-employee relations” and Dills Act section 3515 therefore grants state employees representational rights that are at least as broad as those afforded private sector employees under NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251 and other federal authorities interpreting section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. (pp. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text.
08/15/19
2660S * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * State of California (Office of the Inspector General)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
Based on the facts of this case, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) had a duty not to interfere with the protected rights of correctional officers or their exclusive representative. The subject-matter of the interviews—the officers’ observations during their work at the prison—were work-related. Although OIG did not conduct the interviews at the request of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), CDCR management cooperated with and supported the interviews. OIG coordinated with local prison management to have the officers made available for the interviews, and directed officers to report at a specified time and place for the interviews. OIG held the interviews at the officers’ job sites, before or during the officers’ on-duty time. Moreover, some OIG agents apparently recognized the validity of the officers’ requests for representation and permitted their union representatives to participate in and record the interviews. (p. 20.) more or view all topics or full text.
08/15/19
2652E Contra Costa Community College District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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.
06/26/19
2598S * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
An investigatory or disciplinary interview falls within the broad definition of “all matters of employer-employee relations,” and section 3515 therefore guarantees state employees representational rights that are at least as broad as those afforded private-sector employees under NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (1975) 420 U.S. 251 (Weingarten) and other federal authorities interpreting section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Not all meetings with management must conform to the requirements of Weingarten before the right to representation attaches. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.
437811/26/18
2598S * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
Regardless of how a meeting may be characterized or envisioned by management, if it serves to elicit incriminating evidence with the potential to impact the employment relationship, then it is “investigatory” for the purposes of the representational rights guaranteed by the PERB-administered statutes. (Capistrano Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2440, p. 20 [citing County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2267-M, adopting proposed decision at pp. 19-20].) (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.
437811/26/18
2598S * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
An invasive search of an employee’s person, including an unclothed body search, is the type of investigatory meeting which gives rise to the right of union representation. The right to union representation attaches whenever an employer demands that an employee submit to an invasive body search, or subjects an employee to such a search. (p. 14.) An invasive body search is fundamentally confrontational. (p. 12.) As in a drug testing situation, an invasive body search is such an unusual and stressful situation that an employee is likely to volunteer information in an effort at self-defense, and therefore has a right to union representation even if the employer does not intend to ask questions. The right to union representation therefore attaches before an employee is invasively searched, just as it attaches before an employee takes a drug or alcohol test. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.
437811/26/18
2598S * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
If an employer rejects an employee’s request for representation, she cannot be found to have voluntarily waived her right to representation. (p. 15.) Employer which continued the interrogation after employee requested representation, effectively denied the request, thereby committing an unfair practice. (p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text.
437811/26/18
2619M County of San Joaquin (Sheriff's Department)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
PERB will find a violation of the right to representation when (a) the employee or the union representative requested representation before (b) responding to a request to provide written information, (c) which the employee reasonably believed could result in disciplinary action, and (d) the employer denied the request. PERB found a violation even though the employee did not ultimately submit the written statement. more or view all topics or full text.
4311412/28/18
2599E San Bernardino Community College District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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.
438512/05/18
2599E San Bernardino Community College District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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.
438512/05/18
2599E San Bernardino Community College District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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.
438512/05/18
2567E Hartnell Community College District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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
2440E Capistrano Unified School District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
EERA section 3543.1, subdivision (b), provides an independent right to employee organizations, not found in the federal law, to represent their members in their employment relations with the public school employer. When applying the Weingarten decision and other non-California authorities, they must be harmonized with the language and purposes of the PERB administered statutes. Where California statutes provide for broader rights not found in the federal law, the Board must follow the intent of the Legislature to effectuate the purposes of the statute. While an employee must make an affirmative request for representation, it does not need to be made directly to the employer or to be phrased in a particular form. No magic words or specific conduct is required so long as the employer has reasonable notice of the employee’s desire for representation. Employee, who stated that, “If this [meeting] is going to be disciplinary,” she wanted representation, effectively communicated her desire for representation. To insist that employees refrain from using grammatically conditional language when communicating their right for representation seems unnecessarily formulaic and contrary to the purpose EERA. Employees may refuse to attend investigatory or disciplinary interviews or refuse to respond to questions without fear of discipline or reprisal from the employer, if their representational rights are denied. Where employee effectively communicated her desire for representation to supervisor, in the absence of evidence that she had reconsidered or waived her right to representation, her subsequent refusal to respond to supervisor’s questioning was protected and not a proper basis for discipline. Where an employer bases disciplinary action in part on protected conduct, rather than determine what portion is not in violation of the statute, Board ordered rescission and expungement of the entire penalty. Notwithstanding supervisor’s assurance that he did not intend for unannounced meeting with employee to result in discipline, because his questioning was designed to determine whether employee understood his instructions, and whether she intended to comply with them, after she had previously informed supervisor that she “was not going to do this," employee’s request for representation was based on reasonable belief that discipline might ensue. Regardless of how a meeting may be characterized or envisioned by management, if it serves to elicit incriminating evidence with the potential to impact the employment relationship, then it is "investigatory" for the purposes of the representational rights guaranteed by the PERB-administered statutes. The reasonableness of an employee’s belief that discipline might ensue, and thus of whether the employee was entitled to representation, will turn on the totality of circumstances present at the time, which may include the employee's history and previous communications with management on matters related to the subject of the interview. Where employee had history of acrimonious relationship with supervisor and recent disagreements over the wisdom and practicality of supervisor’s instructions, she could reasonably anticipate that an unannounced meeting called by the supervisor would result in discipline and that representation was necessary. The right to representation is designed to protect employees not only from unwitting admissions or information they may disclose during an investigation, but also from employee conduct in circumstances where a representative might have prevented the employee from losing his or her temper, becoming insubordinate, lying, or engaging in other misconduct in the course of an investigation, and thereby giving the employer additional or alternative grounds for discipline. The right to representation protects employees from not only their admissions as a result of an unlawful interview but also from their conduct, including misconduct, occurring as the result of an unlawful interview. Employee whose misconduct was in part a result of an interview held under unlawful conditions may be entitled to make-whole relief. Because employer’s written reprimand referenced both protected and unprotected conduct, rather than re-write the employer’s reprimand, the Board ordered rescission and expungement of the entire document. The right to representation is not dependent on whether an employer’s questions or the employee’s responses are related to the employer’s reasons for calling a meeting or to the grounds provided for subsequent disciplinary action. History of acrimonious relations, recent disagreements and other circumstances caused employee reasonably to fear discipline, regardless of whether supervisor subjectively intended for meeting to result in or justify disciplinary action. An employer’s assurance that discipline is not contemplated is not determinative of whether a meeting is “investigative” or “disciplinary” and thus whether a right to representation attaches. more or view all topics or full text.
402406/30/15
2423M County of San Bernardino (Office of the Public Defender)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
When an employee requests representation in an investigatory interview, the employer may exercise one of three options: (1) it may grant the employee’s request for representation; or (2) it may discontinue the interview; or (3) offer the employee the choice of proceeding with the interview without union representation or having no interview. Where the Association has appointed no DPDs as labor representatives, the Public Defender’s across-the-board prohibition of cross-representation between DPDs and DDAs in any investigatory meetings prevents attorneys in the Office of the Public Defender from ever being represented by Association representatives in investigatory interviews or other disciplinary proceedings. Such action is inherently destructive of both employees’ right to be represented and the Association’s right to represent unit members. A Public Defender has a legitimate reason to exclude DDAs from investigatory meetings, at least where the Public Defender’s client confidential information or Public Defender work product is likely to be revealed. It may also be justified in preventing such cross-representation where the representing DDA is the opposing counsel to the DPD in a criminal case, or in other situations in which the rules of professional responsibility or rules of court require that the representation be disclosed to the Public Defender’s client, and/or that either attorney would be forced to disqualify himself or herself from further representation in the criminal case. Internal office procedures for documenting attorney work do not fall within the definition of attorney “work product.” Although the Public Defender had no power over whom the Association appointed as stewards or representatives, or over the fact that the Association had not appointed any DPDs as labor representatives, and although the cross-representation ban was occasioned by circumstances beyond the employer’s control, the Public Defender had the alternative of declining to proceed with the interview and continue its investigation by other means, or redacting sensitive information from materials involved in the investigatory interview. A Public Defender may not seek to secure for itself the benefits of an investigatory interview with an employee suspected of wrongdoing by compelling the employee’s attendance at the interview, while it denies the employee and the Association their respective representation rights, including the employee’s right to decline to be interviewed without threat of insubordination. When confronted with a DPD’s request for Association representation in an investigatory interview, the Public Defender could either grant the request, or inform the employee that it will not permit the representative to be present, and the employee has the option of attending the interview without a representative or decline to be interviewed. Or the employer may dispense with the interview entirely. The employer may not persist in proceeding with the interview without the employee’s representative present. Nor may the employer threaten the employee with additional discipline for declining to attend the interview without representation. Regardless of whether the Public Defender’s prohibition on cross-representation was justified, the DPD ultimately had the right to decline to be interviewed or to submit to the interview unrepresented. The Public Defender was never privileged to threaten the DPD with insubordination after failing to give him those options. A union representative’s physical presence made her “available” to represent a DPD, and therefore the County (under the Weingarten/Rio Hondo framework) was obligated to give the DPD the choice of proceeding without representation or foregoing the interview, and to refrain from threatening the DPD with discipline for failure to attend the interview. The fact that an employee and his or her union ultimately withdraw their request for representation at an investigatory meeting does not shield the employer from liability for threatening an employee with discipline for insubordination. Advanced notice from an employer that it will ignore the Weingarten/Rio Hondo representation framework is no defense to an actual violation of the law and does not obligate either the union or employee under investigation to accommodate that violation of the employee’s and the union’s rights. A Public Defender is not legally obligated to interview an employee as part of its disciplinary investigation, thus excusing its threat to discipline him for insubordination if he failed to attend the interview. The Weingarten/Rio Hondo framework applies to DPDs and DDAs under the MMBA. Regardless of any alleged past practice between the parties, the Association was within its rights to insist that its statutory right to represent the members of the bargaining unit be honored. more or view all topics or full text.
3916505/15/15
2283E Jurupa Unified School District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
To be effective, the right to union representation in an investigatory interview includes an opportunity for the employee prior to the interview to confer with the union. Where the employer schedules the interview in such fashion that the employee has no opportunity to confer with the union on the employee’s own time prior to the interview, then upon request of either the employee or the union representative the employer must provide a reasonable time for the employee and the union representative to confer, in private, before proceeding with the interview so that the union representative “can provide meaningful representation” not merely be an observer. Under EERA a union designates the union’s agents, including without limitation union agents who will represent employees in investigatory interviews. EERA does not oblige an employer or the union to accommodate an employee’s choice of union representative, either in scheduling or conducting an investigatory interview; provided that, where an employee’s preferred union representative is available, an employer may not insist upon a different representative. (Consolidation Coal Co. (1992) 307 NLRB 976.) Nor does EERA afford an employee the right to be represented by the employee’s own attorney in an investigatory interview conducted by employer officials. (California Teachers Association, Solano Community College Chapter, CTA/NEA (Tsai) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2096.) more or view all topics or full text.
08/21/12
2285S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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.
09/17/12
2237S State of California (Board of Equalization)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
Where meeting was 10 to 15 minutes, purpose of meeting was informative and instructional, and charging party was not questioned, meeting was not an “investigatory interview” for purposes of determining whether the respondent violated charging party’s Weingarten rights to union representation during the meeting; in order to establish a Weingarten violation, the nature of the meeting must be investigatory, i.e., a questioning session, interrogation or interview. more or view all topics or full text.
3612102/07/12
2267M County of Santa Clara * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2479
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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.
05/25/12
2058M San Bernardino County Public Defender
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
In order to establish a violation of a charging party’s right to union representation, the charging party must establish, among other things, that the meeting for which representation was requested was investigatory in nature. more or view all topics or full text.
3314809/03/09
2072S State of California (Department of Social Services)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
During telephone conversation about employee’s behavior, employee’s assertion that he would not answer any questions without a representative, coupled with his attempt to obtain additional information, was sufficiently clear to establish that an investigatory meeting occurred that employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action, and employee communicated a request for representation. Employer did not unlawfully deny representation, where, after asking three times if the employee had any information to provide, it ceased questioning and terminated the interview. more or view all topics or full text.
3317710/27/09
1935E Los Banos Unified School District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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.
321712/21/07
1908E Delano Union Elementary School District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
The District interfered with the Association’s rights when Principal Bans admonished Kotch both verbally and in writing for interviewing another employee off school grounds and before contract hours. more or view all topics or full text.
3111106/06/07
1853H Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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. If the sole purpose of a meeting is to present a final disciplinary memo, the employee has no right to union representation. more or view all topics or full text.
3015508/29/06
1648E Lake Elsinore Unified School District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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. The right to representation attaches in investigatory interviews whether or not the interview is labeled as such. The circumstances in this case are similar to those in Redwoods Community College Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1984) 159 Cal. App. 3d 617 [205 Cal. Rptr. 523]. 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.
2818506/23/04
1628M City of Santa Barbara
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
No Weingarten violation where employer never refused to allow employee representative during meetings. more or view all topics or full text.
2815005/14/04

408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
employees statutory right to effective union representation under the MMBA includes a right to have a union representative accompany him to a meeting with his employer when the employee reasonably anticipates that such meeting may involve union activities and when the employee reasonably fears that adverse action may result from such a meeting because of union related conduct. more or view all topics or full text.
1360E Los Angeles County Office of Education (Burton)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
A Weingarten violation occurs when an employee requests union representation during a meeting with management and the request is denied. 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. No violation where Charging Party did not participate in an investigatory or disciplinary meeting. The officials of the District simply attempted to informed Charging Party of their decision to remove her from the classroom, and did not intend to engage in any meeting or investigation. more or view all topics or full text.
243101611/03/99

408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
Court disapproved Board decision in Redwoods CCD (1983) PERB Decision No. 293 insofar as it states or necessarily implied that under EERA, the right to union representation at individual employee-management interviews will never depend upon a showing that the employee reasonably believes that the interview may result in disciplinary action. [159 Cal.App.3d at 626] more or view all topics or full text.
1297S State of California (Department of Corrections)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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.
233001010/22/98
1270E San Bernardino City Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
An employee has a right to union representation at an investigatory interview the employee reasonably believes may result in disciplinary action. In Redwoods Community College Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 617 [205 Cal.Rptr. 523], the court extended the Weingarten right of representation under EERA to an interview with "highly unusual circumstances" even if the element of discipline is absent; p. 62, proposed dec. Faced with an assertion of the Weingarten right, the employer may (as one option) dispense with or discontinue the interview. The Weingarten rule requiring representation is in applicable if no meeting or interview takes place; p. 63, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
222911306/22/98
1190E Elk Grove Unified School District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
To exercise the right to representation, the employee must request representation; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
212807003/25/97
1164E Barstow Unified School District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
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.
202712508/07/96
1049S State of California (Department of Transportation)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
The right to representation attaches at an employer-conducted interview where an employee reasonably anticipates and fears that the interview may lead to disciplinary action; p. 1, warning letter. An employer is not required to postpone an interview because a specific union representative the employee requested is absent, so long as another union representative is available at the time set for the interview. Nor is the employer obliged to suggest or secure alternative representation for the employee; p. 2, warning letter, fn. 1. more or view all topics or full text.
182509906/02/94
0893H California State University, Long Beach (California State Employees Association)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
Employee has right of representation, upon request, at any employer's investigatory interview if the employee reasonably believes that the interview might result in disciplinary action; p. 19, proposed dec. As meeting was an investigatory interview, the employer was required to refrain from further interview of the employee until the requested representative was present. Since the questioning continued, the employee was denied her valid right to representation; p. 25, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
152212307/23/91
0810S State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) * * * OVERRULED by State of California (Department of Corrections) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1100-S
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
Denial of "Weingarten rights" constitutes interference with protected rights and, therefore, violates 3519(a); since contract provision mirrors language of 3519(a), claim of denial of "Weingarten rights" deferred to arbitration, but concurrent claim of denial of employee organization rights not covered by contract is not deferred; pp. 4-6. more or view all topics or full text.
142111406/04/90
0810Sa State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) * * * OVERRULED by State of California (Department of Corrections) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1100-S
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
Prima facie violation stated where, assuming facts alleged are true, employee could reasonably have believed that discipline might occur; p. 4, fn. 3. more or view all topics or full text.
142115408/01/90
1210S State of California (Department of California Highway Patrol)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
The right to representation does not apply to run of the mill shop conversations such as giving instructions or correcting work techniques; p. 18, proposed dec. When the employee was not asked any questions, and the meeting did not result in a finding of insubordination, the presentation of a memo giving the employee work instructions was not investigatory and the right of representation did not attach; pp. 19 and 21, proposed dec. The right to representation does not attach in an investigatory meeting regarding another employee's conduct; p. 22, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
212812006/23/97
0449H Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
Violation found where employee denied right to union representation during an audit of duties conducted as a result of reclassification request. more or view all topics or full text.
91601412/04/84
0310H Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association)
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
No violation where University stopped and rescheduled disciplinary meeting once employee made request for union representation; pp. 29-30, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
71415605/19/83
0260E Rio Hondo Community College District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
Investigatory Interviews (Rt. to union representation applies to a disciplinary interview, whether labeled investigatory or not, so long as the interview is not merely for the purpose of informing the employee that he or she is being discipline; p. 17. more or view all topics or full text.
71401011/30/82
0145E Marin Community College District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
Employer interfered with protected rights by reprimanding employee who refused to attend investigatory interview without union representative. more or view all topics or full text.
41119811/19/80
0047E Pittsburg Unified School District
408.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Investigatory Interviews
No denial of rep. where rep. chosen by employees unavailable. more or view all topics or full text.
2205102/10/78