All notes for Subtopic 408.05000 – Other Circumstances
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2822E | Victor Valley Union High School District 408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances 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 |
| 2598S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) * * * Remedial Order SUPERSEDED by State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2598a-S 408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION;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. | 43 | 78 | 11/26/18 |
| 2532C | Sonoma County Superior Court 408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances Employees’ 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. | 42 | 6 | 06/27/17 |
| 2409C | Sonoma County Superior Court 408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances 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 |
| 2166M | Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances 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 |
| 1245S | State of California (Department of Corrections) (International Union of Operating Engineers) 408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances Employees have the right to union representation at disciplinary and investigatory interviews or in highly unusual circumstances. Right to representation does not exist for corrective discussions in which the only question asked by the supervisor was a rhetorical one; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29046 | 01/28/98 |
| 0893H | California State University, Long Beach (California State Employees Association) 408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances Given the intimidating atmosphere, as well as the employee's uncertainty about signing a document, it was not unreasonable for employee to believe that she needed the assistance of her union representation to provide advice and direction; p. 23, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22123 | 07/23/91 |
| 0377E | Placer Hills Union High School District 408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances Employee entitled to and was unlawfully denied counsel of his union representative when he was requested to supply immediate, written response to derogatory material placed in his personnel file; p. 40. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15037 | 02/14/84 |
| 0293E | Redwoods Community College District 408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances Barring a union representative from a meeting at which an evaluation is being appealed is a denial of rights granted in section 3543.1(a); p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14098 | 03/15/83 |
| 0202E | Chaffey Joint Union High School District (Fleck) 408.05000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS; Other Circumstances Individual grievant does not have an indefeasible right under EERA section 3543 (second par.) to be represented during a negotiated grievance proceeding by a representative of the employee's choice. The right to file grievances and have them adjusted without intervention of the exclusive representative is not absolute. A contract provision limiting a grievant's choice of representative to one selected by the exclusive representative was not inconsistent with section 3543. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13077 | 03/26/82 |