Decision 1580M – Oxnard Harbor District
LA-CO-9-M
Decision Date: January 9, 2004
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charge alleged that union violated MMBA by engaging in a sympathy strike. Board found that there is no common law prohibition on strikes. Thus, a sympathy strike only constitutes an unlawful unilateral change if prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement. Board found that agreement did not expressly prohibit sympathy strikes.
Disposition: Board dismissed charge.
Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 56
Decision Headnotes
301.01000 – 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.
301.06000 – Sympathy
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. The term ‘sympathy strike’ refers to one group of employees supporting the strike of another group of employees of the same employer. However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Federal Courts have recognized the right of employees to refuse to cross “stranger” picket lines. Here, District employees represented by SEIU respected ILWU informational picket lines at the District’s place of business. The ILWU was protesting the lockout by their employer, the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA). The connecting factor is that the District provides the work location for employees of the PMA. This conduct falls somewhere in between the conduct described in Children’s Hospital and that in Southern California Edison and thus should be considered a sympathy strike.
801.02000 – Employee Right to Refrain from Union Activities
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.
801.04000 – Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc.
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.
801.05000 – 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.
802.01000 – 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.
1402.01000 – In General
The right to engage in a sympathy strike may be waived in a collective bargaining agreement. However, it is critical to note that the courts have held that a general no-strike clause that does not specify whether sympathy strikes are included or excluded, does not, simply by virtue of its incorporation in a collective bargaining agreement, prohibit such strikes.
1402.02000 – Union’s Waiver of Employee or Organizational Rights
The right to engage in a sympathy strike may be waived in a collective bargaining agreement. However, it is critical to note that the courts have held that a general no-strike clause that does not specify whether sympathy strikes are included or excluded, does not, simply by virtue of its incorporation in a collective bargaining agreement, prohibit such strikes.