Decision 2613M – County of Santa Clara
SF-CE-1339-M
Decision Date: December 21, 2018
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: An ALJ found that the employer interfered with employee and union rights when, upon placing the union’s president on investigative leave, it directed him to refrain from discussing the allegations against him with other employees. The employer filed exceptions.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the proposed decision.
Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 104
Decision Headnotes
300.01000 – In General
There is no more fundamental right afforded employees under the statutory scheme than the right to communicate with others about working conditions, which include the circumstances underlying and surrounding an investigation into alleged employee misconduct.
400.01000 – In General; Standards
A prima facie case of interference is established by allegations that an employer’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights under our statutes. If the harm to protected rights is slight and the employer offers justification based on operational necessity, the competing interests are balanced. If the harm to employee rights outweighs the asserted business justification, a violation will be found. Where the employer’s conduct is inherently destructive of protected rights, it will be excused only on proof that it was caused by circumstances beyond the employer’s control and that no alternative course of action was available.
404.01000 – In General
Directive prohibiting employee from communicating with co-workers about matter for which he was being investigated prevented him from contacting potential witnesses, making inquiries that could help him prepare for investigatory interview, and from assisting the union in representing him.
409.01000 – Business Necessity
Employer failed to meet burden of establishing justification for overbroad directive because it made no attempt to do so, but rather only claimed, without basis, that various external laws prohibited it from attempting to do so.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Noncompliance with PERB Regulation 32300, subdivision (a), can result in dismissal of the exceptions without review of the merits of the excepting party’s claims. However, based on public policy favoring resolving cases on their merits, the Board may exercise its discretion to disregard noncompliance.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Failure to advance an argument in exceptions constitutes abandonment of the argument.
1107.11000 – Request for Oral Argument
The Board typically denies such requests when an adequate record has been prepared, the parties had ample opportunity to present briefs and have availed themselves of that opportunity, and the issues before the Board are sufficiently clear as to make oral argument unnecessary.