Decision 2058M – San Bernardino County Public Defender

LA-CE-390-M

Decision Date: September 3, 2009

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 148

Decision Headnotes

408.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS
408.01000 – In General

An employee who is required to attend an investigatory interview is entitled to union representation if the employee has a reasonable basis to believe discipline may result from the meeting. In order to establish a violation of this right, the charging party must demonstrate: (a) the employee requested representation; (b) for an investigatory meeting; (c) which the employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action; and (d) the employer denied the request.

408.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO SELF OR UNION REPRESENTATION; WEINGARTEN RIGHTS
408.03000 – Investigatory Interviews

In order to establish a violation of a charging party’s right to union representation, the charging party must establish, among other things, that the meeting for which representation was requested was investigatory in nature.


504.14000 – Other/In General

Timing alone is insufficient to establish a nexus between protected activity and adverse action. Though the charge established timing, it failed to allege additional facts showing the required nexus.