Decision 1263H – Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)

PERB has held that an "employee's right to engage in concerted activity may permit some leeway for impulsive behavior, which must be balanced against the employer's right to maintain order and respect." An activity loses its protected character, when the activity is "opprobrious, flagrant, insulting, defamatory, insubordinate, or fraught with malice"; p. 46. An employer may expect that employee activity be carried out in a lawful manner through the pursuit of lawful means; p. 47; Notices asserting "possible" sick leave are protected.

PERB has held that an "employee's right to engage in concerted activity may permit some leeway for impulsive behavior, which must be balanced against the employer's right to maintain order and respect." An activity loses its protected character when the activity is "opprobrious, flagrant, insulting, defamatory, insubordinate, or fraught with malice"; p. 46. An employer may expect that employee activity be carried out in a lawful manner through the pursuit of lawful means; p. 47; Notices asserting "possible" sick leave are protected.

Threats are deemded to be interference with portected rights under section 3571 because they tend to or do result in harm to employee rights; p. 43; In general, whether particular comments constitute an unlawful threat depends on the circumstances in which they occurred. A statement may be considered an implied threat of adverse action, depending on the manner in which it was delivered and other surrounding circumstances; p. 45. Although employees could reasonably have inferred employer's statement that employees "could lose their jobs" if they elevated a protest regarding sick leave policy carried the threat of dismissal, statement was not unlawful because it was excusable under the circumstances; pp. 45-46.

Although employees could reasonably have inferred employer's statement that employees "could lose their jobs" if they elevated a protest regarding sick leave policy carried the threat of dismissal, statement was not unlawful because it was excusable under the circumstances; pp. 45-46. PERB has held that an "employee's right to engage in concerted activity may permit some leeway for impulsive behavior, which must be balanced against the employer's right to maintain order and respect." An activity loses its protected character when the activity is "opprobrious, flagrant, insulting, defamatory, insubordinate, or fraught with malice"; p. 46. An employer may expect that employee activity be carried out in a lawful manner through the pursuit of lawful means; p. 47; Notices asserting "possible" sick leave are protected. lawful manner through the pursuit of lawful means; p. 47; Notices asserting "possible" sick leave are protected.

Cases construing the employer's right of free speech establish that a statement containing a threat of reprisal loses its protection, and will be found unlawful if the employer shows no overriding operational necessity justifying it; p. 44.

In order to prevail on a claim of retaliation, the charging party must establish that he engaged in protected activity, that the activity was known to the employer, and that the employer took adverse action because of such activity. The adverse action must involve actual, rather than merely speculative, harm; it must satisfy an objective, "reasonable man" standard considering the impact on the employee's conditions of employment; pp. 47-48. PERB has held that an "employee's right to engage in concerted activity may permit some leeway for impulsive behavior, which must be balanced against the employer's right to maintain order and respect." An activity loses its protected character, when the activity is "opprobrious, flagrant, insulting, defamatory, insubordinate, or fraught with malice"; p. 46. An employer may expect that employee activity be carried out in a fraught with malice"; p. 46. An employer may expect that employee activity be carried out in a

Employees' submission of "potential sick leave" notices was protected activity; p. 50.

Involuntary transfer or reassignments of employee was adverse action, despite the fact that employee did not suffer loss of pay or benefits; p. 52.

Evidence that disciplinary letter and employee's suspension and medical separation were retaliatory included timing, disparate treatment, departure from standard procedures; and exaggerated justification; pp. 55-67.

Evidence that disciplinary letter and employee's suspension and medical separation were retaliatory included timing, disparate treatment, departure from standard procedures; and exaggerated justification; pp. 55-67.

Evidence that disciplinary letter and employee's suspension and medical separation were retaliatory included timing, disparate treatment, departure from standard procedures; and exaggerated justification; pp. 55-67.

Evidence that disciplinary letter and employee's suspension and medical separation were retaliatory included timing, disparate treatment, departure from standard procedures; and exaggerated justification; pp. 55-67.