Decision 1711S – State of California, (Department of Consumer Affairs)
SA-CE-1385-S
Decision Date: November 23, 2004
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Employer interference, restraint and coercion of employees alleged where employer disciplined supervisor who testified at a hearing in support of rank and file grievants.
Disposition: Board determined employer’s discipline of supervisor did not interfere with employee rights. State did not unlawfully deny union request for two investigative reports as union did not demonstrate one of the reports was relevant and privacy concerns outweighed the union’s need for the other.
Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 15
Decision Headnotes
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts
PERB does not have jurisdiction to remedy supervisors' claims of unfair labor practices under the Dills Act except under limited circumstances; p. 18
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
PERB does not have jurisdiction to remedy supervisors' claims of unfair labor practices under the Dills Act except under limited circumstances; p. 18.
400.01000 – In General; Standards
An employer's discipline of a supervisor may be found unlawful if it interferes with bargaining unit employees' exercise of their rights under the Dills Act. An employer may not discharge a supervisor for giving testimony adverse to an employer's interest either at an NLRB proceeding or during the processing of an employee's grievance; for refusing to commit unfair labor practices; or because the supervisor fails to prevent unionization; pp. 18-19.
604.01000 – In General
Information requests pertaining to non-bargaining unit employees are not presumed relevant. An exclusive representative bears the burden of demonstrating the "probable or potential relevance" of the requested information to its representation of bargaining unit employees; p. 24. Once the employer indicated that it did not believe the information was relevant for the union's representational purposes, the union had an obligation to clarify its request and explain how the information was necessary and relevant to its duty to represent bargaining unit employees; p. 25.
604.04000 – Confidentiality; Privacy
Constitutional rights of personal privacy may limit requests for confidential information. Where production of information may infringe on a right of privacy, the NLRB has balanced the union's need for the information with the individual's privacy interests. PERB has adopted this approach in situations where these competing interests conflict; p. 26. Evidence of security procedures in evaluating threat assessments for elected officials could be compromised by release of investigative information and such information may impair future investigations; p. 27.
604.05000 – Subjects of Information
Information pertaining to the investigation of workplace safety matters is presumptively relevant; p. 26.
608.04000 – Non-Bargaining Unit Employees; Inappropriate Bargaining Unit
Information requests pertaining to non-bargaining unit employees are not presumed relevant. An exclusive representative bears the burden of demonstrating the "probable or potential relevance" of the requested information to its representation of bargaining unit employees; p. 24.
1000.02124 – Safety of Employees
Workplace safety issues are matters within the scope of representation; p. 26.
1405.01000 – In General
Collateral estoppel is not applicable where the SPB did not consider the identical issues before PERB, that of whether the discipline was motivated by protected activity and interfered with the rights of bargaining unit employees; p. 22.