All notes for Subtopic 409.01000 – Business Necessity

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2687H Trustees of the California State University (Northridge)
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Overruling in part State of California (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2285-S, p. 14, Board clarified that it does not adhere to a “general rule” that investigations into employee misconduct serve a legitimate business purpose. Rather, PERB examines the facts and circumstances of each specific case in determining the extent to which the employer has demonstrated a legitimate purpose that outweighs any tendency the investigation may have to coerce employees or labor organizations in the exercise of protected rights. more or view all topics or full text.
12/13/19
2632M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
While motive is not part of the prima facie case of interference, where the respondent has asserted that it acted for a legitimate business purpose, PERB analyzes the affirmative defense, in part, using principles applicable in a “mixed motive” discrimination case. Specifically, the Board may consider not only whether the stated justification is legitimate, but also whether it was, in fact, the reason for the employer’s conduct. Affirmative defense fails where the key distinction at the heart of the unlawful pay structure is not a distinction in which employees earn more due to higher skill or higher level work; to the contrary, the only explanation that accurately describes the District’s pay structure is that the District wanted unrepresented managers to earn more, even if they were at the same level as represented managers. more or view all topics or full text.
4315003/07/19
2687H Trustees of the California State University (Northridge)
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
An employer’s conduct during an investigation can be unlawful even if the employer lawfully decided to investigate potential misconduct. (p. 5, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text.
12/13/19
2687H Trustees of the California State University (Northridge)
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Investigations into employee misconduct may serve a legitimate business purpose. PERB examines the facts and circumstances of each specific case in determining the extent to which the employer has demonstrated a legitimate purpose that outweighs any tendency the investigation may have to coerce employees or labor organizations in their exercise of protected rights. Although a charging party can establish a prima facie case of interference without evidence of the employer’s motive, we may examine motive at the affirmative defense stage of our analysis if the charging party alleges that the employer’s purported business justification was pretextual or was not the “but for” cause of the employer’s action. (p. 4.) PERB’s analysis of an employer’s affirmative defense to an interference allegation may turn on different factors where it appears that its motives were mixed, i.e., where an employer asserts it had reasonable grounds for believing that an employee engaged in misconduct that was intertwined with arguably protected conduct. (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text.
12/13/19
2654E * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Claremont Unified School District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
In the area of employer rules and directives, PERB does not look favorably on broad, vague directives that might chill lawful speech or other protected conduct. (p. 20.) In cases involving broad no-contact directives, the employer bears the burden of proving the existence of an operational necessity for the directive as to that specific employee under the particular circumstances. (pp. 20-21.) The key to an appropriate directive is that it be tailored to the circumstances, particularly the unprotected conduct, at issue. (pp. 23-24.) A blanket prohibition on any communications with other District employees based on asserted concerns regarding harassment and intimidation is overbroad where the employee’s precipitating communication was neither harassing nor intimidating. (p. 23.) more or view all topics or full text.
07/10/19
2654E * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Claremont Unified School District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
EERA section 3543 protects employees’ “right to communicate with co-workers about working conditions.” (p. 21.) An overbroad directive prohibiting an employee from “discussing his working conditions with his coworkers” violates this right, even if the directive allows him to communicate with his union representatives, including those who are also employees. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text.
07/10/19
2611M County of Orange
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
While work time is for work, and an employer may therefore restrict non-business activities during work time, an employer fails to meet its burden to establish a legitimate business interest where it singles out or enforces a general rule more strictly with respect to union-related activities. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text.
4310112/19/18
2613M County of Santa Clara
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Employer failed to meet burden of establishing justification for overbroad directive because it made no attempt to do so, but rather only claimed, without basis, that various external laws prohibited it from attempting to do so. more or view all topics or full text.
4310412/21/18
2595E William S. Hart Union High School District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Business justification for questioning a union steward about employees’ complaints about another employee did not outweigh harm to employee rights. Possibility that steward was ignoring those complaints because of personal relationship with the employee would be only weak evidence that the steward and employee were engaged in misconduct, but struck at the heart of matters in which the employer had no legitimate interest: the adequacy of the steward’s representation of bargaining unit members. more or view all topics or full text.
437411/09/18
2556M County of San Bernardino
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Photographic or video surveillance may be justified as necessary to gather evidence when the employer reasonably believes that union organizers or employers are engaging in misconduct. more or view all topics or full text.
4211403/06/18
2556M County of San Bernardino
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Business necessity defense is not available to employer that engages in surveillance to document violations of an access policy that is itself unlawful. more or view all topics or full text.
4211403/06/18
2522H Trustees of the California State University
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text.
4115003/20/17
2517C Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Because some Court employees had regular contact with the public as part of their duties, while others did not, and the record contained little evidence as to particular job classifications the Board rejected the Court’s argument that, because of its constitutional mandate to provide both the appearance and the fact of impartiality and neutrality to all litigants who appear before it, the ban on displaying writings or union insignia anywhere in the courthouse visible to the public is entitled to a presumption of legality. The Board reasoned that an objectively reasonable person viewing buttons or other regalia worn by Court employees and expressing support for the exclusive representative and/or its bargaining demands would not be attributed to the Superior Court judge assigned to the case. (p. 24.) Under the PERB-administered statutes, the organizational right of access to the workplace is presumed and the burden is on the employer to establish that its regulation is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to prevent disruption of operations. PERB has long held that wearing union clothing, buttons or pins in the workplace is protected, absent a showing of special circumstances to justify the restriction. (pp. 21-22.) The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rules prohibiting employees from wearing union regalia anywhere in the courthouse and the display of union writings and images in all work areas visible to the public were overly broad and interfered with protected rights under the Trial Court Act. more or view all topics or full text.
4114002/27/17
2517C Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Although “[p]rivate-sector cases have concluded that, depending upon the situation, the need to project a certain image may permit an employer to ban union regalia” in areas where employees will have contact with the public, the Board rejected the Court’s argument that its need to project an image of impartiality and neutrality is a special circumstance justifying its restrictions on union regalia in the courtrooms and the rooms where mediations are conducted because the Court put on insufficient evidence to support a finding of special circumstances and it cannot categorically ban all display of union logos or regalia. Additionally, the Court’s history of having no such policy or/and of its lax or non-existent enforcement of any unwritten and apparently unpublicized policy defeated any assertion of special circumstances requiring such a policy now. The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rules prohibiting employees from wearing union regalia anywhere in the courthouse and the display of union writings and images in all work areas visible to the public were overly broad and interfered with protected rights under the Trial Court Act. more or view all topics or full text.
4114002/27/17
2517C Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
The Board found lawful a personnel rule prohibiting distribution on “working time,” where that term was defined, in relevant part, as “the working time of both the employee doing the … distributing and the employee to whom the … [literature] is being directed.” PERB and NLRB precedents recognize that “Working time is for work” and an employer rule that relies on that term, without further specification, is in facial compliance with the law. PERB rejected the charging party’s exception that, by specifying some but not all exceptions, the rule was ambiguous and susceptible to an overly broad reading. An employer rule that identifies some, but not all exceptions to the term “working time” is not per se unlawful and there was no evidence that this portion of the rule was enforced in an overly broad manner. (pp. 26-27.) more or view all topics or full text.
4114002/27/17
2517C Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rule, as written, was ambiguous and overly broad in its potential to discourage employees from engaging in protected activity in mixed-use areas during their non-duty time. Specifically, the rule does not take into consideration that, during regularly-scheduled meal breaks or other times when not in use for official Court business, certain working areas of the courthouse convert into nonworking areas. (p. 28.) The PERB-administered statutes contain a presumptive right of access to public-sector workplaces by union agents, subject to reasonable regulation. To constitute a “reasonable” regulation of this statutory-protected right, the employer must show that the particular regulation is both: (1) necessary for efficient operations and/or for the health and safety of employees or others; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with the exercise of statutory rights. Rules directly affecting employee rights must also be narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary inference, including the likelihood that latent ambiguity would chill the exercise of protected activity. (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text.
4114002/27/17
2517C Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Where the record demonstrated that employees in various departments of the Court take their meal or rest breaks in unused courtrooms and jury rooms as well as at their cubicles, desks or other employee workstations, and even in a file room, such areas are considered “mixed-use” areas. During non-duty time, solicitation and the distribution of literature as well as other nondisruptive concerted activities in so-called mixed-use areas, are statutorily protected. (p. 29.) Because the Court’s categorical ban on distributing literature in such mixed-use areas is reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that unlawfully restricts protected activity during employees’ non-duty time, the Board found it overly broad and in violation of the Trial Court Act. (p. 29.) Rules directly affecting employee rights must be narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary inference, including the likelihood that latent ambiguity would chill the exercise of protected activity. (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text.
4114002/27/17
2517C Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
The Board rejected the Court’s argument that it could not be found liable for an overly broad ban on distribution in mixed-use areas because it had never enforced its rule to restrict protected activity during non-duty time. Under the decades-old Carlsbad standard, a prima facie interference violation is established if the employer’s conduct, including its promulgation or maintenance of a rule, tends to or does result in harm to employee rights. (p. 31.) Even absent enforcement, the promulgation or maintenance of an employer rule may interfere with protected rights because its ambiguity creates the reasonable possibility of a broad interpretation in the future that would produce a chilling effect on protected activity. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text.
4114002/27/17
2517C Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Instead of using the term “working time” to define the temporal scope of its restriction on solicitation and thereby restating PERB and private-sector decisional law, the Court’s personnel rule instead introduced the separate and undefined term “working hours,” which PERB precedents have treated as suspect, because of its potential to restrict protected activity during all “working hours” when employees are at work, including duty-free time. Given the ambiguity, the Board found the Court’s rule banning solicitation during “working hours” ambiguous and overly broad. While “Working time is for work,” and an employer may therefore prohibit solicitation during “working time,” an employer rule that prohibits solicitation or distribution during “working hours,” but makes no mention of duty-free times during “working hours,” such as meal or rest periods, when employees may solicit one another or distribute literature, may reasonably be interpreted as authoring no such activities during those duty-free periods of the day. more or view all topics or full text.
4114002/27/17
2517C Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Because some Court employees had regular contact with the public as part of their duties, while others did not, and the record contained little evidence as to particular job classifications the Board rejected the Court’s analogy to federal cases involving patient-care areas in hospitals to justify its ban on displaying writings or union insignia anywhere in the courthouse visible to the public. (.) Under the PERB-administered statutes, the organizational right of access to the workplace is presumed and the burden is on the employer to establish that its regulation is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to prevent disruption of operations. PERB has long held that wearing union clothing, buttons or pins in the workplace is protected, absent a showing of special circumstances to justify the restriction. (pp. 21-22.) The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rules prohibiting employees from wearing union regalia anywhere in the courthouse and the display of union writings and images in all work areas visible to the public were overly broad and interfered with protected rights under the Trial Court Act. more or view all topics or full text.
4114002/27/17
2536M City and County of San Francisco
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Once a prima facie case of interference is established, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate justification for its conduct. The scrutiny with which the employer’s conduct will be examined depends on the severity of the harm. Where the harm to employees’ rights is slight and the employer offers justification based on operational necessity, the competing interests will be balanced. But where the harm is inherently destructive of employee rights, the employer’s conduct will be excused only on proof that it was occasioned by circumstances beyond the employer’s control and that no alternative course of action was available. more or view all topics or full text.
421406/30/17
2453E Cabrillo Community College District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
If the harm to protected rights is slight and the employer offers justification based on operational necessity, the competing interests are balanced. If the harm to employee rights outweighs the asserted business justification, a violation will be found. Where the employer’s conduct is inherently destructive of protected rights, it will be excused only on proof that it was caused by circumstances beyond the employer’s control and that no alternative course of action was available. more or view all topics or full text.
405709/17/15
2423M County of San Bernardino (Office of the Public Defender)
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
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. more or view all topics or full text.
3916505/15/15
2300H Regents of the University of California
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
The summary manner in which union organizers were ordered to leave their meetings amounted to at least slight harm to both the Union’s right to communicate with employees and to employees’ right to participate in these meetings, thereby triggering the Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89 test. Under that test, the University simply failed to justify its actions as a legitimate operational necessity. more or view all topics or full text.
12/20/12
2285S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Issuance of cease and desist order against union steward conducting union investigation into alleged misconduct by a supervisor for a potential grievance was not justified by legitimate business reason related to maintaining integrity of employer’s investigation, where there is no evidence steward’s conduct interfered with, delayed, distorted or unduly influenced employer’s investigation. Legitimacy of employer’s justification for interfering with employee organizational rights is undermined by: inaccurate way in which information was reported up the chain of command and acted upon without verification; employer’s reliance on a policy manual section that does not appear to support action taken; employer’s proffering of a false equivalency between cease and desist orders given to job steward and supervisor under investigation; and inconsistent understanding among witnesses regarding scope and effect of order. In balancing the competing interests of the parties, 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
2031M Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Roseville (2016) PERB Decision No. 2505-M
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Employer coercively threatened employees with layoff in violation of MMBA section 3506 when, after employees filed unit modification petition, employer told employees that there would be layoffs if they went with the union. The Board rejected the employer’s contention that it was merely stating an honest and reasonable projection of future layoffs because of budget deficits, as it did not implement layoffs because of a legitimate budget deficit, but rather to retaliate against the employees. Even taking the budget defense as legitimate, it is not based solely on legal expenses but on the entire budget, and employer did not give employees an honest and reasonable projection of his own view of the possibility of layoffs, but focused only on the detrimental effect of unionization. more or view all topics or full text.
339205/29/09
2030M Omnitrans
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
When an employer has produced a legitimate business reason for conduct that interferes with employee or union rights, PERB must balance the competing interests to determine whether a violation has occurred. Employer denied union officer further access to an employee assembly room on the ground that his presence was disruptive. Evidence showed that officer’s presence did not interfere with employer’s operations. Nor did the fact that the officer was discussing with employees a topic of concern to management, rest and meal periods, justify the denial because there was no evidence discussion of that subject actually impaired the employer’s operations. more or view all topics or full text.
339105/29/09
1971M City of Torrance
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
No business necessity defense where employer conduct that interfered with protected rights under MMBA was not required for enforcement of presidential release time MOU. more or view all topics or full text.
3212608/21/08
1766M City of Monterey
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
The City’s exclusion of McCormick from the hearing was not justified by either an alleged violation of the Brown Act or the City’s designation of McCormick as a witness. While it is true that the City Code provides for applicability of the Brown Act and the City’s discretion to sequester witnesses, that discretion does not automatically trump MMBA rights. The authority is permissive and such authority may not be exercised in a manner that violates the rights of employees or employee organizations under the MMBA. The plain language of the City’s Code states that formal rules of evidence do not apply to disciplinary hearings so that the City’s citation of Evidence Code section 777 as support for excluding McCormick from the hearing was unpersuasive. The City excluded McCormick while permitting the City’s representative and chief witness to remain in the hearing. The City Council in this matter is not a “neutral decider of cases,” but rather acted as an agent of the City and responsible for the City’s actions. more or view all topics or full text.
2913005/20/05
1664M City and County of San Francisco
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Although Poon stated a prima facie case of interference, the City contended that her involuntary transfer was due to lack of work in her department. Local 790 was advised of this response in the warning letter but did not file an amended charge to dispute this fact and so did not refute the employer’s claim of legitimate business reasons for its action. more or view all topics or full text.
2823107/27/04
1725E Hilmar Unified School District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
The District’s uncorroborated hearsay evidence about harm to the District from allowing the Association direct contact with the health plan administrator was not credited. The District consequently did not provide evidence of operational necessity as balance to the harm to employees from precluding the Association from direct contact with the health plan administrator. more or view all topics or full text.
293512/15/04
1026S State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) (International Union of Operating Engineers, Craft-Maintenance Division, Units 12 and 13)
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Department did not meet its burden demonstrating an operational necessity for the ban on buttons which would justify the harm caused to employee and union rights by the prohibition of union buttons; p. 21, proposed dec. The protected right to wear union buttons is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable regulation. If special circumstances exist, then the employer may be within its rights to limit or prohibit the wearing of buttons by employees; p. 4, proposed dec. Special circumstances justifying a prohibition of union buttons or insignia exist where buttons could jeopardize employee's safety; damaged machinery or products; exacerbate employee dissension; cause distraction from work demanding great concentration; disrupt the uniformity, discipline or appearance of neutrality among para-military law enforcement employees: or damage the image to the public by the uniformity, discipline or appearance of neutrality among para-military law enforcement employees: or damage the image to the public by the more or view all topics or full text.
182501111/17/93
1006E Gonzales Union High School District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
No interference claim as to the elimination of the mentor teacher program as the harm to employees rights was slight when weighed against the District's clear statutory right and its intent in saving money as its motivation to eliminate the program; p. 17, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
172411906/25/93
0543E San Mateo Community College District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Reliance on Ed. code provision no defense where inapplicable to situation at bar; reliance on contract ineffective where applicable provisions unenforceable. more or view all topics or full text.
101701512/13/85
2485E Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Allegation that public school employer promulgated, maintained and enforced policy specifically prohibiting employees from distributing materials of “a political or union nature” stated prima facie allegation of employer interference with protected employee and organizational rights by making impermissible content-based restriction. Because the degree of intrusion into an employer’s property or managerial interests does not vary with the content of the material distributed, an employer’s only legitimate interest in regulating such conduct is in preventing employees from bringing literature onto its premises and distributing it there — not in choosing which messages to condone or suppress. In addition to non-work areas, once the employer has opened up other parts of the workplace as a forum for some forms of non-work related speech or expressive conduct, it is generally not free to ban other non-disruptive speech or conduct based solely on its content. more or view all topics or full text.
412306/30/16
0470H Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association)
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Employer had valid business reasons for the alleged interference and those reasons were not found to be pretextual; pp. 45-50, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
91604112/28/84
0305H Regents of the University of California (Berkeley)
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Phone call to employee from personnel officer did not unlawfully interfere with employee's right to representation regarding grievance where any harm was slight and was outweighed by employer's legitimate justification for the telephone call; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text.
71413904/28/83
0292E Rio Hondo Community College District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
As District could have achieved same result by enforcing its existing policy, change in leave policy cannot be found to be reasonably necessary to avert a serious threat of interruption of educational services and is not justified by business necessity; p. 18. more or view all topics or full text.
71409103/08/83
0251E Coast Community College District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
Employer's proffered explanation for its actions was reasonable and legitimate and outweighed the harm done to employee rights; thus no interference violation. more or view all topics or full text.
61323710/15/82
0210E Novato Unified School District
409.1000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
District's claim of operational necessity must be based on facts which are concurrent or which antedate the decision to transfer employee; p. 21. more or view all topics or full text.
61311404/30/82