All notes for Subtopic 802.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I060C | San Mateo County Superior Court (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General Employer alleged that union’s planned strike would constitute an unfair practice because it included employees the Employer believed provide services essential to public health and safety. A union violates its duty to bargain in good faith if it causes a strike by one or more employees whose absence from work imminently and substantially threatens public health or safety. (City of San Jose, supra, 49 Cal.4th at pp. 606-608; Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1) (2015) PERB Order No. IR-59-C, p. 2 (Sacramento County Superior Court).) (p. 3) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 137 | 02/20/19 |
| I059C | Sacramento County Superior Court (United Public Employees Local 1) 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General Unless statutorily prohibited from striking, the California Supreme Court’s County Sanitation standard requires that it be “clearly demonstrated,” on a case-by-case basis, that public employees’ participation in a strike would create an imminent and substantial threat to public health and safety. The availability of replacement workers goes into the determination of whether an employee or a class of employees is “essential” to public health and safety and may be enjoined from striking. The Board denied a trial court employer’s request to seek an injunction against a planned two-day strike by court employees because the court’s declarations did not clearly demonstrate that, without employees in the seven positions at issue, the Court's essential functions could not or would not be performed. The Court did not demonstrate that it could not use managers or supervisors to perform the functions of court clerks and its moving papers did not disclose how many supervisors or managers were qualified and available to perform the work of those employees the Court identified as “essential.” It also failed to identify the specific level and nature of services that must be maintained to preserve public health and safety. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 114 | 12/30/15 |
| 2480M | County of Trinity (United Public Employees of California, Local 792) 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General Because bargaining impasse was not broken, the bargaining obligation was not revived and the exclusive representative did not violate its duty to bargain in good faith by going out on strike; impasse suspends the parties’ obligation to bargain only until “changed circumstances” demonstrate that an agreement may be possible; the making of “concessions” is key to finding a change in circumstances sufficient to revive the duty to bargain; a handful of non-substantive e-mail exchanges exploring the parties’ interest in and availability for a meeting did not rise to the level of changed circumstances sufficient to revive the bargaining obligation, as there was no evidence that either party made a substantial concession from an earlier position and was genuinely committed to a new bargaining position; because the parties were at impasse, the employer had the option to refuse the exclusive representative’s request to meet, to respond to the request with a concession substantial enough to revive the bargaining obligation or to unilaterally impose its last, best and final offer; by instead insisting that the duty to bargain was revived, the employer foreclosed all its options. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 171 | 04/25/16 |
| I058E | Sweetwater Union High School District 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General A union’s strike preparations undertaken before impasse procedures have been exhausted do not constitute “reasonable cause” to believe that an unfair practice has been committed sufficient to justify PERB seeking injunctive relief from the courts in the absence of evidence that the union lacked the intent to reach an agreement. Unlike an actual work stoppage, preparing for a strike is more akin to speech protected by EERA. PERB has long held that speech in the workplace that is related to the legitimate concerns of employees is protected activity within the meaning of EERA section 3543. A union’s communications to bargaining unit members and to the employer regarding strike preparation, including strike threats and strike votes, without a work stoppage are not coercive activities under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 31 | 08/20/14 |
| 2141M | City of San Jose 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General Picketing by building inspectors directed at private employers with the object of inducing private employees to refuse to work, shutting down private construction sites, was an unfair pressure tactic in violation of the MMBA. Tactics were particularly coercive given that the inspectors possessed direct regulatory control over the construction projects they picketed. The disruption of the business of neutral third parties is inconsistent with the public interest in promoting harmonious labor relations as well as the efficient delivery of public services. The absence of specific language in the MMBA prohibiting secondary picketing does not preclude finding picketing constituted an unlawful pressure tactic, since PERB has broad authority to identify unfair pressure tactics that undermine the collective bargaining process, even if such conduct is not specifically prohibited by the governing statute. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 167 | 11/10/10 |
| 2094H | Regents of the University of California * * * OVERRULED IN PART by amendment to HEERA section 3563.3, Stats. 2011, Ch. 539 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Stats. 2011, ch. 539 (S.B. 857), § 4. * * *HEERA does not prohibit strikes; the lawfulness of a strike is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. A strike prior to the completion of statutory impasse procedures is presumed unlawful. The employee organization may rebut the presumption by proving the strike was provoked by the employer’s unfair practices. Employee organization did not prove employer committed any unfair practices and therefore failed to rebut presumption. A threat to strike and strike preparations are an unfair practice if they: (1) were made in furtherance of an unlawful strike, and (2) were sufficiently substantial to support a reasonable belief by the employer that the strike would occur as noticed. Employee organization gave clear written notice of one-day strike to occur before completion of statutory impasse procedures and engaged in substantial preparations for strike. Under totality of circumstances test, employee organization’s conduct was an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 41 | 02/02/10 |
| 1997S | State of California (Departments of Veterans Affairs and Personnel Administration) 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General The parties’ expired MOU contained a no-strike provision. While the Board found that SEIU may have: (1) “condoned” the sick-out; (2) failed to provide notice to union staff of the no-strike provisions of the MOU; and (3) failed to provide sufficient encouragement for “sick” employees to return to work, the Board found that such did not constitute a unilateral change by SEIU of the no-strike provision. The Board did not find that SEIU implemented a new policy, breached the provision in the past or would do so in the future, or that the breach had a generalized effect upon bargaining unit members. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 27 | 12/22/08 |
| 1859E | Grossmont Union High School District 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General Where there is no evidence that the union encouraged, planned, authorized or ratified a "sick out," no violation of the duty to bargain in good faith will be found. Statistical correlation alone was not enough to establish an inference that Grossmont Education Association, or its agents, either planned or organized the sickout. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 4 | 09/19/06 |
| 1638H | Regents of the University of California 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General As there is no common law prohibition on strikes, a sympathy strike constitutes an unfair practice only if prohibited by the applicable CBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 162 | 06/09/04 |
| 1580M | Oxnard Harbor District 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General The California Supreme Court has recognized that there is no common law prohibition on strikes by California public sector employees and their unions. Thus, a sympathy strike only constitutes an unlawful unilateral change if prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 56 | 01/09/04 |
| 1015E | Vallejo City Unified School District 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General Legal issues concerning a post-impasse strike were presented to the Board in Compton Unified School District (1987) PERB Order No. IR-50. In Compton the Board found that to establish a prima facie case, the District must show the strike caused "a total breakdown of two discrete activities that are guaranteed by statutue and case law: (1) basic education for students and (2) negotiations free from coercive tactics that hold hostage that education." The District failed to satisfy these standards; pp. 2-3, dismissal letter. Although only 100 teachers showed up to work on the strike day, the District was able to recruit a large number of substitutes and did not demonstrate a total breakdown in the educational process. Further, no evidence was presented showing that the two-day strike had an impact on student attendance beyond the week of the strike; p. 3, dismissal letter. on student attendance beyond the week of the strike; p. 3, dismissal letter. negotiations during the strike period. Thus, there was no evidence demonstrating a breakdown in the negotiation process; pp. 3-4, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24166 | 09/29/93 |
| 0803E | Los Angeles Unified School District 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General Refusal to perform required duties in order to advance the union's position at the bargaining table is tantamount to a partial strike and is an unlawful bargaining tactic; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21082 | 03/30/90 |
| 0728E | Compton Community College District 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General The fact that most union officials also called in sick is, in and of itself, insufficient to demonstrate union involvement in the "sick out;" p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20076 | 04/04/89 |
| 0537E | El Dorado Union High School District 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General Picketting during on-duty time, even though there were no specific assignments, violated EERA, as a partial work stoppage. Boycott of required extra duty assignment is a violation because the assignments are mandatory, therefore the boycott is a partial work stoppage. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17006 | 12/02/85 |
| 0537Ea | El Dorado Union High School District 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General Strikes are unprotected during impasse resolution process, and violate 3543.6(d) but not 3543.6(c). more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17057 | 02/03/86 |
| 0292E | Rio Hondo Community College District 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General As Association did not charge that District engaged in bad faith or surface bargaining at the table and no evidence supports a finding of causal connection between unfair practice charges and strike, Board found that one-day strike was not provoked by District's unlawful conduct; p. 29. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14091 | 03/08/83 |
| 0136E | Fremont Unified School District * * * VACATED IN PART by Fremont Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 136a 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General * * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fremont Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 136a. * * *Strikes are not unlawful per se under EERA. It is the totality of the employee organization's conduct which controls. A work stoppage is a significant factor, but only one factor, to consider. In the context of the case as a whole, the work stoppage here, in response to employer unfair practice and during mediation, did not evidence an intent to avoid or delay agreement and therefore was not unlawful. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11118 | 06/19/80 |
| 0100E | Sacramento City Unified School District 802.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES; In General Board found that the Association stated a prima facie case of discrimination where it alleged that the District refused to pay employees personal necessity leaves because they were allegedly engaged in a work stoppage; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10109 | 08/14/79 |