Decision 3003H – Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
SF-CE-1435-H
Decision Date: February 9, 2026
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Employees of the Respondent Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles (University) Facilities Management department conducted two unscheduled “delegations” to department management, to complain about the impacts of staffing practices used by the department. At least one employee at each delegation made a video recording with a smartphone. The employees later received counseling memoranda and negative comments in performance evaluations referencing one of those delegations, asserting that the employees had behaved in a “confrontational” manner and violated the University’s values and the collective bargaining agreement, and that the recording violated “State law.” The University also posted notices in the employees’ workplaces with similar statements, and admonished employees not to speak to managers about their concerns without scheduling a meeting through the University’s labor relations office. The University also sent those employees’ exclusive representative, Charging Party American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Local 3299 (AFSCME) “Warning Letters” with similar statements. AFSCME alleged that the University’s conduct violated the Higher Education Employer Employee Relations Act (HEERA) by interfering with employee and organization rights, retaliating against employees for protected activity, and unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment.
The University also sent AFSCME a “warning letter” asserting that AFSCME did not comply with University access rules when it held a tabling event in an outdoor area on campus. AFSCME further alleged that this conduct violated HEERA by interfering with employee and organization rights, and unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment.
A PERB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a formal hearing and issued a proposed decision upholding AFSCME’s interference and retaliation allegations but rejecting the unilateral change allegations. The University filed exceptions and AFSCME filed cross-exceptions.
Disposition: The Board reversed the proposed decision in part and found that the University’s responses to the employee delegation retaliated against employees for protected activity, interfered with employee and organization rights, and unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment, and that its response to AFSCME’s tabling event interfered with employee and organization rights. The Board also modified the ALJ’s proposed remedy to require a live reading of the notice of the decision to employees, and other measures intended to effectuate the purposes of HEERA.
Decision Headnotes
300.15000 – Speech
An employee is typically protected in criticizing working conditions, management, or union leadership, if the criticism relates to advancing employee interests or is a logical extension of group activity. (p. 24.)
300.15000 – Speech
Protected expressive activity may include employee delegations on employer property to express dissatisfaction with working conditions. (Regents of the University of California (2018) PERB Decision No. 2601-H, pp. 17-18.) (p. 25.)
300.15000 – Speech
Although labor and employment disputes may engender ill feelings and strong responses, the law encourages “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate,” to overcome these disputes. (Carpinteria Unified School District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2797, pp. 13-14 (Carpinteria), citing City of Oakland (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, p. 23.) Thus, employees’ right to engage in concerted activity permits some leeway for impulsive or intemperate behavior. (Carpinteria, supra, pp. 13-14.) Protected speech may lose its status as such only if the employer meets its burden to prove the speech was “maliciously dishonest or so insubordinate or flagrant as to create a substantial disruption or the serious risk thereof.” (SunLine Transit Agency (2024) PERB Decision No. 2928-M, p. 18, citing San Jacinto, supra, PERB Decision No. 2865, pp. 21-22.) Where the employer claims that speech was so flagrant or insubordinate as to disrupt operations, PERB conducts a fact-intensive inquiry that considers all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of what occurred; and (4) the extent to which the speech or conduct at issue can fairly be said to have been provoked by the employer. (Carpinteria, supra, p. 14.) (p. 25.)
300.15000 – Speech
Making lawful video recordings in furtherance of protected activity is also protected activity. An employer must prove special circumstances to justify restrictions on protected recording activity. (pp. 26-27, 31-32.)
300.17000 – Other
Making lawful video recordings in furtherance of protected activity is also protected activity. An employer must prove special circumstances to justify restrictions on protected recording activity. (pp. 26-27, 31-32.)
401.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case.
HEERA section 3568 provides that “[s]ubject to reasonable regulations, employee organizations shall have the right of access at reasonable times to areas in which employees work, the right to use institutional bulletin boards, mailboxes and other means of communication, and the right to use institutional facilities at reasonable times for the purpose of meetings concerned with the exercise of the rights guaranteed by [HEERA].” An employer must allow an exclusive representative reasonable access to employer property to communicate with bargaining unit employees, distribute literature, investigate workplace conditions, and assess contractual and statutory compliance. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 26-39.) An employer bears the burden of proving that a restriction on access to its premises is: (1) necessary to safe or efficient operations; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (Id. at pp. 26-27; County of Riverside (2012) PERB Decision No. 2233-M, pp. 7-8, 13.) These principles apply irrespective of whether the person seeking access is a bargaining unit member or a union representative who does not work for the employer. (County of San Joaquin, supra, p. 27.) (p. 35.)
401.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case.
PERB has upheld employer rules requiring union representatives to identify themselves upon arrival, as long as those rules are not applied to employee organizations differently from other visitors. (Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1700-H, adopting proposed decision at p. 53; Long Beach Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 130, p. 15 (Long Beach).) Such rules are reasonable because they protect the employer’s legitimate interest in monitoring visitors. (Long Beach, supra, pp. 15-16.) However, rules requiring advance notice of unscheduled visits by union representatives, whose availability is “sporadic and unpredictable,” are unreasonable. (Regents of the University of California, supra, adopting proposed decision at p. 71.) (p. 36.)
401.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case.
Employer’s broad and onerous policies requiring 10-day advance registration, advance approval, an employer “guarantor,” and further conditions on use was unlawful as applied to outdoors union tabling event. (p. 47.)
409.08000 – Special Circumstances
An employer must prove special circumstances to justify restrictions on protected recording activity. (pp. 31-32.)
505.01000 – In General
Where employees’ protected activity is the only basis for adverse actions, the employer cannot prove that it would have taken the same actions in the absence of the employees’ protected activity. (Mount San Jacinto Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2605, p. 20; State of California (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2282-S, p. 4.)
1205.01000 – In General
To cure chilling effect of employer’s extreme and unfounded allegations against employees engaged in protected activity, Board may supplement its standard notice posting by ordering a live notice reading and written apology. (pp. 53-54.)