All notes for Subtopic 804.03000 – Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I062H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119) 804.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic Like any type of protected concerted activity, strikes require a certain degree of coordination to be successful. That degree necessarily increases when unions commit to giving the employer advanced notice of their intent to strike, as occurred here. The Board could not understand the University’s charge to have alleged that any and all such coordination was evidence of an unlawful pressure tactic because such an assertion would undermine the very possibility of concerted activities like sympathy strikes, which are clearly protected under PERB law. (p. 7, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 94 | 11/07/19 |
| I062H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 and University Professional and Technical Employees Communication Workers of America Local 9119) 804.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic The Board relied on facts developed in the General Counsel’s investigation of the University’s injunction request and supporting unfair practice charges to assess the existence of reasonable cause. In doing so, the Board found no pattern of conduct that it believed constituted an unlawful pressure tactic. First, the first three strikes were called by different bargaining units, with the remainder choosing to give notice of their intent to respect the primary picket line and strike in sympathy. Second, the two most recent of these strikes were preceded by the filing of various unfair practice charges. There is no question that a strike provoked by an employer’s unfair labor practices is protected at any time it occurs during the negotiating process. Indeed work stoppages that respond to distinct employer actions or issues, even if close in time, are simply not pursuant to a plan to strike intermittently for a single goal, and are therefore protected. Third, the Unions gave ample notice of their intent to strike, thus enabling the University to prepare continuity plans well in advance of each walkout. Finally, a significant period of time elapsed between each strike, indicating again that the Unions did not intend to pick and choose when to work without any regard for the safe and efficient operation of the workplace. (pp. 7-9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 94 | 11/07/19 |
| 2609I | San Francisco County Superior Court and Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 804.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic Employer failed to meet burden of proving that union called a sympathy strike that would imminently and substantially threaten the public health or safety within the meaning of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. Los Angeles County Employees Association, Local 660 (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564. Employer’s witnesses did not establish that absence of the represented employees prevented work from being performed, nor that temporary replacements were unavailable. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 99 | 12/18/18 |
| I058E | Sweetwater Union High School District 804.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic 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 804.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic 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 that picketing by building inspectors directed at private employers with the object of inducing private employees to refuse to work, shutting down private construction sites, constituted an unlawful pressure tactic in violation of the MMBA. 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 |
| 1997S | State of California (Departments of Veterans Affairs and Personnel Administration) 804.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic 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 |
| 0292E | Rio Hondo Community College District 804.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic One-day pre-impasse strike motivated by economic considerations to gain concessions at bargaining table amounts to a refusal to bargain in good faith in violation of section 3543.6(c) and (a); p. 30. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14091 | 03/08/83 |
| 0277E | Westminster School District 804.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic As Association neither alleged nor proved that its pre-impasse strike was provoked by the District's conduct, the work stoppage was an economic strike and constituted a refusal to negotiate and to participate in impasse; pp. 15-16. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14034 | 12/31/82 |
| 0217E | Konocti Unified School District 804.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic Strikes votes or strike talk - even before completion of negotiations and mediation - are not per se violations of union's good faith obligations. Total conduct must be examined; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13152 | 06/29/82 |