All notes for Subtopic 801.05000 – Union Threats; Violence
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2572M | San Bernardino Public Employees Association 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence Statement that union president intended to file disciplinary charges against employee for perjury was not an adverse action where employee was informed the next working day, through no effort of his own, that union president would not be filing charges. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 7 | 06/21/18 |
| 2445E | Santa Maria Joint Union High School District 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence An e-mail from a member of the employee organization’s Election Committee that referred to a bargaining unit member as an “aggressive jerk” may show animus or hostility toward that member but does not demonstrate unlawful animus directed towards that bargaining unit member because of protected activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 38 | 07/31/15 |
| 2277M | Service Employees International Union, Local 221 (Gutierrez) 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence Under the reasonable person standard, a phone call from the union president to management inquiring as to charging party’s whereabouts, which was precipitated by complaints that charging party was conducting union business on work time, did not constitute adverse action where management resolved issue with charging party without incident; charging party’s subjective reaction of feeling fearful in combination with the lack of any evidence of adverse impact on employment led to the conclusion that the call did not constitute adverse action under a union retaliation analysis. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 28 | 06/29/12 |
| 2266E | Oxnard Federation of Teachers (Collins) 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence PERB will analyze cases involving interference with protected rights by a union according to the principles applicable to the parallel statutory provision prohibiting employer interference and reprisals; the test for whether statements constitute interference or coercion depends on whether, under the existing circumstances, they reasonably tend to interfere with or coerce in the exercise of guaranteed rights, not whether the employee subjectively perceives the statements in that manner; where charging party interpreted a union representative’s statements about potential “repercussions” with the school district if charging party pursued her grievance with a private attorney as a threat that she believed was connected to a meeting with employer to discuss curriculum in response to alleged student complaints about charging party’s teaching techniques, no prima facie case of interference stated because union representative had no control over the employment relationship and is not responsible for actions of the employer and because there is no basis to conclude that such statements would reasonably tend to discourage her from pursuing her grievance against the school district. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 5 | 05/25/12 |
| 1580M | Oxnard Harbor District 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence District challenged the legality of a union threatening to fine its members for failing to honor a picket line or call to strike. Under the NLRA, a union is free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate business interest, impairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against union members who are free to leave a union and escape the rule. Applying these criteria, the NLRB has held that a union did not violate the NLRA by threatening to fine members who failed to engage in a sympathy strike if the strike did not violate the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 56 | 01/09/04 |
| 1610M | Service Employees International Union Local 250 (Stewart) 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence Allegations that union steward was “threatened” and labeled a “troublemaker” by her union fail to provide the factual specificity necessary to state a prima facie case of interference. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 125 | 04/02/04 |
| 1554E | Chula Vista Elementary Education Association (Abrams) 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence The public announcement of the union by it’s grievance chair that employee had filed a charge against the union with PERB does not interfere with the employee’s rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 9 | 10/22/03 |
| 1401E | Riverside County Office Teachers Association (Mc Alpine, et al.) 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence Charge alleging that an employee felt intimidated by statement made by union president, where charge was refuted by employee, failed to present facts demonstrating the Association interfered with or threatened bargaining unit members; pp. 4-5, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31144 | 08/31/00 |
| 1355S | California State Employees Association (Hutchinson) 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence Statements of intentions to pursue legal remedies is protected speech and do not constitute an illegal threat; p. 6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30177 | 10/07/99 |
| 1142E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Lowman) 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence Speech activity by the union is accorded generous protection so long as it is related to matters of legitimate concern; the expression of views or opinion does not evidence an unfair practice unless there is a threat of reprisal or promise of benefit; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27058 | 02/29/96 |
| 1038H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence Threat made to officer not sufficient to overturn election as the threat was made anonymously and could not be identified with the Association. Further, the officer appeared not to have been coerced into voting; p. 6; pp. 19-20, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25052 | 03/04/94 |
| 0899E | California School Employees Association (Gilligan) 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence Charging party must establish that the union's conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights guaranteed under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22139 | 08/30/91 |
| 0693H | California Faculty Association (Hale, et al.) 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence Statements like "gutter slime" by union representative directed at unit members do not constitute interference; union representative did not threaten adverse action and had no direct authority to affect employees' work status. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19136 | 07/26/88 |
| 0208E | Fresno Unified School District 801.05000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Threats; Violence Absent an atmosphere of intimidation and violence, mere namecalling, abusive or vulgar language, and photographing and taking of license numbers did not interfere with nonstrikers exercising their right to refrain from participating in the activities of the Association; pp. 12-14. Test is whether picket line misconduct may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate employees in the exercise of their rights. Individual feelings are not the measure. Blocking of egress and ingress is coercive when it occurs in conjunction with an atmosphere of intimidation and violence. Isolated examples of photographing or taking license numbers were not coercive. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13110 | 04/30/82 |