All notes for Subtopic 409.03000 – Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2717E * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Alliance Environmental Science and Technology High School, et al.
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
Employer did not successfully repudiate its unlawful conduct because it did not communicate with all affected employees and did not give assurances that it would not engage in future misconduct. (Page 26) more or view all topics or full text.
05/18/20
2556M County of San Bernardino
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
Under the Board’s retraction doctrine, an effective retraction must be: (1) timely; (2) unambiguous; (3) specific in nature to the coercive conduct; (4) free from other illegal conduct; (5) adequately publicized to the affected employees; (6) not followed by other illegal conduct; and (7) accompanied by assurances that the employer will not interfere with their protected rights in the future. more or view all topics or full text.
4211403/06/18
2522H Trustees of the California State University
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
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
2300H Regents of the University of California
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
An honest retraction of a coercive statement can erase the effects of that illegal statement or threat. PERB has refused to credit a retraction where it was incomplete and did not reach all of the employees who were subjected to the original coercive statements. We do not believe the university’s retraction to a union organizer renders its violations de minimis because it was an incomplete retraction. It was not communicated to the employees affected by the wrongful conduct. Nor can it be said that the original interference was unintentional or inadvertent, coming as it did in the context of other actions that deprived the union and employees of their right of access. Seen in the context of the university’s overly restrictive interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement’s access provisions, its assertion that it alone has the right to grant or deny access, and its aggressive attitude toward both organizers as they sought to increase their presence in the workplace as the labor dispute grew increasingly heated, we do not view the retraction given to one union organizer alone erases the coercive effect the organizer’s original ejection from the workplace had on employees’ protected rights. more or view all topics or full text.
12/20/12
1864S State of California (State Personnel Board)
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
No interference where the Dills Act does not provide the claimed right. Specifically, the State Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for parties to negotiate a process whereby ad hoc arbitral boards review discipline, even if the decision, couched as a “settlement,” is submitted to the SPB after the fact. more or view all topics or full text.
311111/14/06
1822E Santee Elementary School District
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
The defense of retraction not available based on prospective disavowals of unlawful conduct. A opportunity to demand to bargain does not ameliorate an interference claim. Statement of rights language does not disclaim unlawful portion of AR. more or view all topics or full text.
307202/22/06
1278E Long Beach Community College District (California School Employees Association)
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
Employer statement that decertification presentation was voluntary was insufficient to undo the effects of the employer's decision to place the decertification presentation on the schedule for mandatory in- service training. Employer made statement just before the start of the decertification presentation but made no effort to retract the offending training schedule and took no other action to assuage the appearance that it supported the decertification effort; pp. 10-11. more or view all topics or full text.
222914708/14/98
0778E Carlsbad Unified School District
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
Retraction. Superintendent's immediate retraction of administrator's denial of secretary to serve on negotiating committee corrected harm. Employee sought participation not for purpose of representation but to achieve appointment to confidential position. In this context, harm to employee was de minimis. more or view all topics or full text.
142100411/21/89
0624E Inglewood Unified School District
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
Subsequent clarification was not adequate as retraction or repudiation of the unlawful statement (threat); p. 11. more or view all topics or full text.
111811406/23/87
2485E Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
Although the employer’s representative allegedly clarified that its e-mail message stating a categorical ban on distributing union literature was intended to address questions from school principals and “was not intended to be shared with staff,” school district did not rebut prima facie case where it never claimed to have publicly and unequivocally disavowed either any inadvertent distribution of the message to teachers or its enforcement by one school principal. Additionally, unless an affirmative defense is established on undisputed facts as a matter of law, it will not rebut a prima facie case at the charge investigation stage of PERB’s unfair practice proceedings. more or view all topics or full text.
412306/30/16
0492E Sacramento City Unified School District
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
An honestly given retraction can erase the effects of a prior coercive statement; retraction must be made in a manner that completely nullifies coercive effects of earlier statement; angry retraction in context of implying that employee made false accusation insufficient retraction. more or view all topics or full text.
91609403/06/85
0310H Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association)
409.3000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
No violation where University stopped and rescheduled disciplinary meeting once employee made request for union represenation; pp. 29-30, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
71415605/19/83