All notes for Subtopic 408.05000 – Other Circumstances
| Victor Valley Union High School District
408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other CircumstancesWhere 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.
| State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) * * * Remedial Order SUPERSEDED by State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2598a-S
408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances* * * Remedial Order SUPERSEDED by State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2598a-S, where, on remand from the Court of Appeal, the Board modified its remedial order to clarify that it applies only in circumstances in which CDCR and its representatives either constitute the appointing authority or are acting as an employer and the employee reasonably fears discipline. * * *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.
| Sonoma County Superior Court
408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other CircumstancesEmployees’ right of representation includes the right to have a union representative attend interactive process meetings convened to explore possible reasonable accommodations for an employee’s disability. more or view all topics or full text.
| Sonoma County Superior Court
| Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
| State of California (Department of Corrections) (International Union of Operating Engineers)
| California State University, Long Beach (California State Employees Association)
| Placer Hills Union High School District
| Redwoods Community College District
| Chaffey Joint Union High School District (Fleck)