Decision 1365Sa – State of California (Employment Development Department)
LA-CE-430-S
Decision Date: May 4, 2001
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board modified Decision No. 1365 pursuant to a remand decision from the Court of Appeal. The underlying decision involved allegations that the employer violated the Dills Act by stopping a unity break and by issuing a memorandum to an employee apparently prohibiting future unity breaks.
Disposition: Violation. Although employees have a protected right to communicate with each other at the work site concerning terms and conditions of employment during non-work times in non-work areas, unity break which consisted of employees displaying signs relating to ongoing contract negotiations at workstations during their break is not protected activity because other employees were working in the area at the time. However, the employer violated the Dills Act by issuing an overbroad memorandum to an employee.
Perc Vol: 25
Perc Index: 32057
Decision Headnotes
300.06000 – Demands for Change in Working Conditions
Unity break, which consisted of employees displaying signs relating to ongoing contract negotiations at workstations during their break, is not protected activity because other employees were working in the same area at the time. Employees have a protected right to communicate with each other at the worksite concerning the terms and conditions of employment during nonwork time in nonwork areas. If those activities do not occur during nonwork time in nonwork areas, the employer must be given leeway to restrict those activities in order to maintain order, production or discipline. Memorandum which prohibits employees from engaging in job actions "during state time or inside the building" is ambiguous and overbroad because it appears to prohibit communication among employees during nonwork times and/or in nonwork areas. When the state issued such a memorandum in violated the Dills Act.
300.17000 – Other
Unity break, which consisted of employees displaying signs relating to ongoing contract negotiations at workstations during their break, is not protected activity because other employees were working in the same area at the time. Employees have a protected right to communicate with each other at the worksite concerning the terms and conditions of employment during nonwork time in nonwork areas. If those activities do not occur during nonwork time in nonwork areas, the employer must be given leeway to restrict those activities in order to maintain order, production or discipline. Memorandum which prohibits employees from engaging in job actions "during state time or inside the building" is ambiguous and overbroad because it appears to prohibit communication among employees during nonwork times and/or in nonwork areas. When the state issued such a memorandum in violated the Dills Act.
401.05000 – Union Activity During Nonworking Time or in Nonworking Areas
Unity break, which consisted of employees displaying signs relating to ongoing contract negotiations at workstations during their break, is not protected activity because other employees were working in the same area at the time. Employees have a protected right to communicate with each other at the worksite concerning the terms and conditions of employment during nonwork time in nonwork areas. If those activities do not occur during nonwork time in nonwork areas, the employer must be given leeway to restrict those activities in order to maintain order, production or discipline. Memorandum which prohibits employees from engaging in job actions "during state time or inside the building" is ambiguous and overbroad because it appears to prohibit communication among employees during nonwork times and/or in nonwork areas. When the state issued such a memorandum in violated the Dills Act.