All notes for Subtopic 409.02000 – Conduct Ineffective

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2654E Claremont Unified School District
409.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Conduct Ineffective
A finding of interference, coercion, or restraint does not require evidence that any employee subjectively felt threatened or intimidated, or was in fact discouraged from participating in protected activity; the inquiry is an objective one which asks whether, under the circumstances, an employee would reasonably be discouraged from engaging in protected activity. Thus, the fact that an employer’s no-contact order did not stop a particular employee from continuing to engage in protected communications does not preclude a finding that the order would have discouraged a reasonable employee from doing so. (p. 22.) more or view all topics or full text.
07/10/19
2556M County of San Bernardino
409.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Conduct Ineffective
The fact that union organizers “intimidated” county agent into deleting a photograph of employees engaged in protected activity did not mitigate the harm to employee rights, because the test of coercion and intimidation is not whether the misconduct proves effective. more or view all topics or full text.
4211403/06/18
2536M City and County of San Francisco
409.2000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Conduct Ineffective
Even if employer’s memorandum had not deterred employees from engaging in a sympathy strike, the test of coercion and intimidation is not whether the misconduct proves effective, but whether under the circumstances it may reasonable tend to coerce or intimidate employees in the exercise of rights protected under the Act. more or view all topics or full text.
421406/30/17