Decision 2522H – Trustees of the California State University

Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.)

Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.)

Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.)

Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.)

Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.)

Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.)

Although PERB Regulations place no limit on the number of times a charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is dismissed, they do not require an investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is appropriate. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); 32621.) (p. 4.)

Where case file gave no indication that the domination and interference theory of liability alleged in the charge had been investigated or addressed in a warning letter, Board vacated the dismissal of that allegation and remanded to Office of the General Counsel for further investigation. PERB Regulations prohibit dismissal of any allegation without prior notice to the charging party. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d).) (pp. 18-19.)

Where case file gave no indication that the domination and interference theory of liability alleged in the charge had been investigated or addressed in a warning letter, Board vacated the dismissal of that allegation and remanded to Office of the General Counsel for further investigation. PERB Regulations prohibit dismissal of any allegation without prior notice to the charging party. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d).) (pp. 18-19.)

Where case file gave no indication that the domination and interference theory of liability alleged in the charge had been investigated or addressed in a warning letter, Board vacated the dismissal of that allegation and remanded to Office of the General Counsel for further investigation. PERB Regulations prohibit dismissal of any allegation without prior notice to the charging party. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d).) (pp. 18-19.)

Where case file gave no indication that the domination and interference theory of liability alleged in the charge had been investigated or addressed in a warning letter, Board vacated the dismissal of that allegation and remanded to Office of the General Counsel for further investigation. PERB Regulations prohibit dismissal of any allegation without prior notice to the charging party. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d).) (pp. 18-19.)

Where case file gave no indication that the domination and interference theory of liability alleged in the charge had been investigated or addressed in a warning letter, Board vacated the dismissal of that allegation and remanded to Office of the General Counsel for further investigation. PERB Regulations prohibit dismissal of any allegation without prior notice to the charging party. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d).) (pp. 18-19.)

Where case file gave no indication that the domination and interference theory of liability alleged in the charge had been investigated or addressed in a warning letter, Board vacated the dismissal of that allegation and remanded to Office of the General Counsel for further investigation. PERB Regulations prohibit dismissal of any allegation without prior notice to the charging party. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d).) (pp. 18-19.)

Where case file gave no indication that the domination and interference theory of liability alleged in the charge had been investigated or addressed in a warning letter, Board vacated the dismissal of that allegation and remanded to Office of the General Counsel for further investigation. PERB Regulations prohibit dismissal of any allegation without prior notice to the charging party. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d).) (pp. 18-19.)

The statutory term “employment relations” is broad enough to include an employer’s administrative or non-collectively bargained remedies. Because the statutory rights of an exclusive representative to represent employees extends to an employer’s non-collectively bargained complaint resolution procedures, employees who are represented by the exclusive representative in a non-collectively bargained complaint procedure are engaged in the protected activity of participating in the activities of an employee organization, regardless of the personal or individual nature of the complaint. (pp. 12-13.)

The statutory term “employment relations” is broad enough to include an employer’s administrative or non-collectively bargained remedies. Because the statutory rights of an exclusive representative to represent employees extends to an employer’s non-collectively bargained complaint resolution procedures, employees who are represented by the exclusive representative in a non-collectively bargained complaint procedure are engaged in the protected activity of participating in the activities of an employee organization, regardless of the personal or individual nature of the complaint. (pp. 12-13.)

The statutory term “employment relations” is broad enough to include an employer’s administrative or non-collectively bargained remedies. Because the statutory rights of an exclusive representative to represent employees extends to an employer’s non-collectively bargained complaint resolution procedures, employees who are represented by the exclusive representative in a non-collectively bargained complaint procedure are engaged in the protected activity of participating in the activities of an employee organization, regardless of the personal or individual nature of the complaint. (pp. 12-13.)

The statutory term “employment relations” is broad enough to include an employer’s administrative or non-collectively bargained remedies. Because the statutory rights of an exclusive representative to represent employees extends to an employer’s non-collectively bargained complaint resolution procedures, employees who are represented by the exclusive representative in a non-collectively bargained complaint procedure are engaged in the protected activity of participating in the activities of an employee organization, regardless of the personal or individual nature of the complaint. (pp. 12-13.)

While an individual employee’s complaint that is “entirely personal in nature and not an extension of concerted action” is unprotected, employee’s complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor falls squarely within the ambit of “employer-employee relations” because it affects workplace safety and freedom from a hostile work environment. Employee activity directed against a supervisor’s conduct or performance is protected when its purpose is to further a legitimate interest in the employees’ working conditions or when the supervisor’s conduct affects collective working conditions. (p. 11.)

While an individual employee’s complaint that is “entirely personal in nature and not an extension of concerted action” is unprotected, employee’s complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor falls squarely within the ambit of “employer-employee relations” because it affects workplace safety and freedom from a hostile work environment. Employee activity directed against a supervisor’s conduct or performance is protected when its purpose is to further a legitimate interest in the employees’ working conditions or when the supervisor’s conduct affects collective working conditions. (p. 11.)

While an individual employee’s complaint that is “entirely personal in nature and not an extension of concerted action” is unprotected, employee’s complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor falls squarely within the ambit of “employer-employee relations” because it affects workplace safety and freedom from a hostile work environment. Employee activity directed against a supervisor’s conduct or performance is protected when its purpose is to further a legitimate interest in the employees’ working conditions or when the supervisor’s conduct affects collective working conditions. (p. 11.)

While an individual employee’s complaint that is “entirely personal in nature and not an extension of concerted action” is unprotected, employee’s complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor falls squarely within the ambit of “employer-employee relations” because it affects workplace safety and freedom from a hostile work environment. Employee activity directed against a supervisor’s conduct or performance is protected when its purpose is to further a legitimate interest in the employees’ working conditions or when the supervisor’s conduct affects collective working conditions. (p. 11.)

While an individual employee’s complaint that is “entirely personal in nature and not an extension of concerted action” is unprotected, employee’s complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor falls squarely within the ambit of “employer-employee relations” because it affects workplace safety and freedom from a hostile work environment. Employee activity directed against a supervisor’s conduct or performance is protected when its purpose is to further a legitimate interest in the employees’ working conditions or when the supervisor’s conduct affects collective working conditions. (p. 11.)

By alleging that the exclusive representative represented employee in her administrative complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor, the charge included sufficient facts to demonstrate that the complaining employee, and by extension a fellow employee who agreed to appear as a witness in support of the complaint, had “participate[d] in the activities of [an] employee organization[] of their own choosing for the purpose of representation” on a matter of employer-employee relations. (pp. 11-12.) Whether an employee’s complaint is presented in a collectively -bargained grievance procedure is not necessarily determinative of whether it is protected activity, because, by virtue of the exclusive representatives’ involvement, the employee was participating in the activities of an employee organization, conduct expressly protected by HEERA section 3565. Fellow employee’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of the administrative complaint was likewise protected participation in an employee organization’s activity, regardless of the nature of the proceedings in which the complaint was presented. (p. 14.)

By alleging that the exclusive representative represented employee in her administrative complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor, the charge included sufficient facts to demonstrate that the complaining employee, and by extension a fellow employee who agreed to appear as a witness in support of the complaint, had “participate[d] in the activities of [an] employee organization[] of their own choosing for the purpose of representation” on a matter of employer-employee relations. (pp. 11-12.) Whether an employee’s complaint is presented in a collectively -bargained grievance procedure is not necessarily determinative of whether it is protected activity, because, by virtue of the exclusive representatives’ involvement, the employee was participating in the activities of an employee organization, conduct expressly protected by HEERA section 3565. Fellow employee’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of the administrative complaint was likewise protected participation in an employee organization’s activity, regardless of the nature of the proceedings in which the complaint was presented. (p. 14.)

By alleging that the exclusive representative represented employee in her administrative complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor, the charge included sufficient facts to demonstrate that the complaining employee, and by extension a fellow employee who agreed to appear as a witness in support of the complaint, had “participate[d] in the activities of [an] employee organization[] of their own choosing for the purpose of representation” on a matter of employer-employee relations. (pp. 11-12.) Whether an employee’s complaint is presented in a collectively -bargained grievance procedure is not necessarily determinative of whether it is protected activity, because, by virtue of the exclusive representatives’ involvement, the employee was participating in the activities of an employee organization, conduct expressly protected by HEERA section 3565. Fellow employee’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of the administrative complaint was likewise protected participation in an employee organization’s activity, regardless of the nature of the proceedings in which the complaint was presented. (p. 14.)

Probationary employee’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of fellow employee’s complaint against allegedly abusive supervisor was protected activity, regardless of whether the complaint procedure was administrative or collectively-bargained. Individual employee activity aimed at providing mutual aid or protection to a coworker is statutorily protected, notwithstanding its informal and spontaneous nature. (p. 17.) If individual employees are not free to act together informally and spontaneously to provide mutual aid or protection to one another, then it is unlikely that they may ever exercise their right to form or join, much less to participate in the activities of, an employee organization, a right expressly guaranteed by the PERB statutes. (p. 16.)

Probationary employee’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of fellow employee’s complaint against allegedly abusive supervisor was protected activity, regardless of whether the complaint procedure was administrative or collectively-bargained. Individual employee activity aimed at providing mutual aid or protection to a coworker is statutorily protected, notwithstanding its informal and spontaneous nature. (p. 17.) If individual employees are not free to act together informally and spontaneously to provide mutual aid or protection to one another, then it is unlikely that they may ever exercise their right to form or join, much less to participate in the activities of, an employee organization, a right expressly guaranteed by the PERB statutes. (p. 16.)

Probationary employee’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of fellow employee’s complaint against allegedly abusive supervisor was protected activity, regardless of whether the complaint procedure was administrative or collectively-bargained. Individual employee activity aimed at providing mutual aid or protection to a coworker is statutorily protected, notwithstanding its informal and spontaneous nature. (p. 17.) If individual employees are not free to act together informally and spontaneously to provide mutual aid or protection to one another, then it is unlikely that they may ever exercise their right to form or join, much less to participate in the activities of, an employee organization, a right expressly guaranteed by the PERB statutes. (p. 16.)

Probationary employee’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of fellow employee’s complaint against allegedly abusive supervisor was protected activity, regardless of whether the complaint procedure was administrative or collectively-bargained. Individual employee activity aimed at providing mutual aid or protection to a coworker is statutorily protected, notwithstanding its informal and spontaneous nature. (p. 17.) If individual employees are not free to act together informally and spontaneously to provide mutual aid or protection to one another, then it is unlikely that they may ever exercise their right to form or join, much less to participate in the activities of, an employee organization, a right expressly guaranteed by the PERB statutes. (p. 16.)

Probationary employee’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of fellow employee’s complaint against allegedly abusive supervisor was protected activity, regardless of whether the complaint procedure was administrative or collectively-bargained. Individual employee activity aimed at providing mutual aid or protection to a coworker is statutorily protected, notwithstanding its informal and spontaneous nature. (p. 17.) If individual employees are not free to act together informally and spontaneously to provide mutual aid or protection to one another, then it is unlikely that they may ever exercise their right to form or join, much less to participate in the activities of, an employee organization, a right expressly guaranteed by the PERB statutes. (p. 16.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)

Allegation that employer’s agent told probationary employee she “should not talk to anyone about the investigation” of a fellow employee’s complaint of abusive treatment against supervisor stated prima facie case of interference with protected rights, since, on its face and without further explanation, a directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit contacting union representatives, or enlisting the support of other employees for the complaint. (p. 22.) To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (p. 21.) Once it is established that the employer’s prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial business justifications” for its conduct. (21-22.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of employment. (Ibid.)