| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.17000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Other
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.04000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.05000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Grievances
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.06000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Demands for Change in Working Conditions
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.10000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Solicitation/Organizing
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.15000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Speech
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.17000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Other
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
400.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES; In General; Standards
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
404.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; In General
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
404.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; STATEMENTS, MEETINGS, NOTICES, AND LEAFLETS; Statements
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
405.02000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; Express or Implied Threats
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
409.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Discontinuance of Illegal Activity; Retraction; Repudiation; Public Disavowal
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1100.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; In General/Prima Facie Case
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1100.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Investigation of Charge
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1100.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Amendments
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1100.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1100.08000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Pleading Requirements
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
Notice Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) at PERB
For information about use of AI in PERB filings, see Atwater Elementary Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Garcia) (2025) PERB Decision No. 2995-E and our FAQ.
