| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.04000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
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 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.05000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Grievances
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 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.17000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Other
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 |
| 2522H |
Trustees of the California State University
300.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; In General
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.) 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
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.) 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
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.) 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
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.) 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
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.) 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
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.) 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
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.) 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
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.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 150 | 03/20/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation
* * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *
Because some Court employees had regular contact with the public as part of their duties, while others did not, and the record contained little evidence as to particular job classifications the Board rejected the Court’s analogy to federal cases involving patient-care areas in hospitals to justify its ban on displaying writings or union insignia anywhere in the courthouse visible to the public. Under the PERB-administered statutes, the organizational right of access to the workplace is presumed and the burden is on the employer to establish that its regulation is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to prevent disruption of operations. PERB has long held that wearing union clothing, buttons or pins in the workplace is protected, absent a showing of special circumstances to justify the restriction. (pp. 21-22.) The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rules prohibiting employees from wearing union regalia anywhere in the courthouse and the display of union writings and images in all work areas visible to the public were overly broad and interfered with protected rights under the Trial Court Act more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
* * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *
Because some Court employees had regular contact with the public as part of their duties, while others did not, and the record contained little evidence as to particular job classifications the Board rejected the Court’s analogy to federal cases involving patient-care areas in hospitals to justify its ban on displaying writings or union insignia anywhere in the courthouse visible to the public. Under the PERB-administered statutes, the organizational right of access to the workplace is presumed and the burden is on the employer to establish that its regulation is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to prevent disruption of operations. PERB has long held that wearing union clothing, buttons or pins in the workplace is protected, absent a showing of special circumstances to justify the restriction. (pp. 21-22.) The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rules prohibiting employees from wearing union regalia anywhere in the courthouse and the display of union writings and images in all work areas visible to the public were overly broad and interfered with protected rights under the Trial Court Act. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation
* * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *
Although “[p]rivate-sector cases have concluded that, depending upon the situation, the need to project a certain image may permit an employer to ban union regalia” in areas where employees will have contact with the public, the Board rejected the Court’s argument that its need to project an image of impartiality and neutrality is a special circumstance justifying its restrictions on union regalia in the courtrooms and the rooms where mediations are conducted because the Court put on insufficient evidence to support a finding of special circumstances and it cannot categorically ban all display of union logos or regalia. Additionally, the Court’s history of having no such policy or/and of its lax or non-existent enforcement of any unwritten and apparently unpublicized policy defeated any assertion of special circumstances requiring such a policy now. The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rules prohibiting employees from wearing union regalia anywhere in the courthouse and the display of union writings and images in all work areas visible to the public were overly broad and interfered with protected rights under the Trial Court Act. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
* * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *
Although “[p]rivate-sector cases have concluded that, depending upon the situation, the need to project a certain image may permit an employer to ban union regalia” in areas where employees will have contact with the public, the Board rejected the Court’s argument that its need to project an image of impartiality and neutrality is a special circumstance justifying its restrictions on union regalia in the courtrooms and the rooms where mediations are conducted because the Court put on insufficient evidence to support a finding of special circumstances and it cannot categorically ban all display of union logos or regalia. Additionally, the Court’s history of having no such policy or/and of its lax or non-existent enforcement of any unwritten and apparently unpublicized policy defeated any assertion of special circumstances requiring such a policy now. The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rules prohibiting employees from wearing union regalia anywhere in the courthouse and the display of union writings and images in all work areas visible to the public were overly broad and interfered with protected rights under the Trial Court Act. (pp. 24-26.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Board found lawful a personnel rule prohibiting distribution on “working time,” where that term was defined, in relevant part, as “the working time of both the employee doing the … distributing and the employee to whom the … [literature] is being directed.” PERB and NLRB precedents recognize that “Working time is for work” and an employer rule that relies on that term, without further specification, is in facial compliance with the law. PERB rejected the charging party’s exception that, by specifying some but not all exceptions, the rule was ambiguous and susceptible to an overly broad reading. An employer rule that identifies some, but not all exceptions to the term “working time” is not per se unlawful and there was no evidence that this portion of the rule was enforced in an overly broad manner. (pp. 26-27.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Board found lawful a personnel rule prohibiting distribution on “working time,” where that term was defined, in relevant part, as “the working time of both the employee doing the … distributing and the employee to whom the … [literature] is being directed.” PERB and NLRB precedents recognize that “Working time is for work” and an employer rule that relies on that term, without further specification, is in facial compliance with the law. PERB rejected the charging party’s exception that, by specifying some but not all exceptions, the rule was ambiguous and susceptible to an overly broad reading. An employer rule that identifies some, but not all exceptions to the term “working time” is not per se unlawful and there was no evidence that this portion of the rule was enforced in an overly broad manner. (pp. 26-27.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rule, as written, was ambiguous and overly broad in its potential to discourage employees from engaging in protected activity in mixed-use areas during their non-duty time. Specifically, the rule does not take into consideration that, during regularly-scheduled meal breaks or other times when not in use for official Court business, certain working areas of the courthouse convert into nonworking areas. (p. 28.) The PERB-administered statutes contain a presumptive right of access to public-sector workplaces by union agents, subject to reasonable regulation. To constitute a “reasonable” regulation of this statutory-protected right, the employer must show that the particular regulation is both: (1) necessary for efficient operations and/or for the health and safety of employees or others; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with the exercise of statutory rights. Rules directly affecting employee rights must also be narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary inference, including the likelihood that latent ambiguity would chill the exercise of protected activity. (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and conclusions that the Court’s rule, as written, was ambiguous and overly broad in its potential to discourage employees from engaging in protected activity in mixed-use areas during their non-duty time. Specifically, the rule does not take into consideration that, during regularly-scheduled meal breaks or other times when not in use for official Court business, certain working areas of the courthouse convert into nonworking areas. (p. 28.) The PERB-administered statutes contain a presumptive right of access to public-sector workplaces by union agents, subject to reasonable regulation. To constitute a “reasonable” regulation of this statutory-protected right, the employer must show that the particular regulation is both: (1) necessary for efficient operations and/or for the health and safety of employees or others; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with the exercise of statutory rights. Rules directly affecting employee rights must also be narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary inference, including the likelihood that latent ambiguity would chill the exercise of protected activity. (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Where the record demonstrated that employees in various departments of the Court take their meal or rest breaks in unused courtrooms and jury rooms as well as at their cubicles, desks or other employee workstations, and even in a file room, such areas are considered “mixed-use” areas. During non-duty time, solicitation and the distribution of literature as well as other nondisruptive concerted activities in so-called mixed-use areas, are statutorily protected. (p. 29.) Because the Court’s categorical ban on distributing literature in such mixed-use areas is reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that unlawfully restricts protected activity during employees’ non-duty time, the Board found it overly broad and in violation of the Trial Court Act. (p. 29.) Rules directly affecting employee rights must be narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary inference, including the likelihood that latent ambiguity would chill the exercise of protected activity. (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
Where the record demonstrated that employees in various departments of the Court take their meal or rest breaks in unused courtrooms and jury rooms as well as at their cubicles, desks or other employee workstations, and even in a file room, such areas are considered “mixed-use” areas. During non-duty time, solicitation and the distribution of literature as well as other nondisruptive concerted activities in so-called mixed-use areas, are statutorily protected. (p. 29.) Because the Court’s categorical ban on distributing literature in such mixed-use areas is reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that unlawfully restricts protected activity during employees’ non-duty time, the Board found it overly broad and in violation of the Trial Court Act. (p. 29.) Rules directly affecting employee rights must be narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary inference, including the likelihood that latent ambiguity would chill the exercise of protected activity. (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Board rejected the Court’s argument that it could not be found liable for an overly broad ban on distribution in mixed-use areas because it had never enforced its rule to restrict protected activity during non-duty time. Under the decades-old Carlsbad standard, a prima facie interference violation is established if the employer’s conduct, including its promulgation or maintenance of a rule, tends to or does result in harm to employee rights. (p. 31.) Even absent enforcement, the promulgation or maintenance of an employer rule may interfere with protected rights because its ambiguity creates the reasonable possibility of a broad interpretation in the future that would produce a chilling effect on protected activity. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
* * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C. * * *
The Board rejected the Court’s argument that it could not be found liable for an overly broad ban on distribution in mixed-use areas because it had never enforced its rule to restrict protected activity during non-duty time. Under the decades-old Carlsbad standard, a prima facie interference violation is established if the employer’s conduct, including its promulgation or maintenance of a rule, tends to or does result in harm to employee rights. (p. 31.) Even absent enforcement, the promulgation or maintenance of an employer rule may interfere with protected rights because its ambiguity creates the reasonable possibility of a broad interpretation in the future that would produce a chilling effect on protected activity. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
401.03000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Ban on Distribution or Solicitation
* * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *
Instead of using the term “working time” to define the temporal scope of its restriction on solicitation and thereby restating PERB and private-sector decisional law, the Court’s personnel rule instead introduced the separate and undefined term “working hours,” which PERB precedents have treated as suspect, because of its potential to restrict protected activity during all “working hours” when employees are at work, including duty-free time. Given the ambiguity, the Board found the Court’s rule banning solicitation during “working hours” ambiguous and overly broad. While “Working time is for work,” and an employer may therefore prohibit solicitation during “working time,” an employer rule that prohibits solicitation or distribution during “working hours,” but makes no mention of duty-free times during “working hours,” such as meal or rest periods, when employees may solicit one another or distribute literature, may reasonably be interpreted as authoring no such activities during those duty-free periods of the day. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
| 2517C |
Fresno County Superior Court * * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C
409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity
* * * VACATED IN PART by Fresno County Superior Court (2019) PERB Decision No. 2517a-C, where the Board issued a modified decision after the Court of Appeal partially vacated a portion of the original decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeal: (1) found that the court-employer’s need to appear neutral to the public was a special circumstance sufficient to support a ban on wearing insignia in the courthouse; (2) set aside PERB’s decision regarding display of union images and writings; (3) upheld PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine; and (4) upheld PERB’s decision finding a violation in the court’s prohibition against distributing union literature in work areas visible to the public. * * *
Instead of using the term “working time” to define the temporal scope of its restriction on solicitation and thereby restating PERB and private-sector decisional law, the Court’s personnel rule instead introduced the separate and undefined term “working hours,” which PERB precedents have treated as suspect, because of its potential to restrict protected activity during all “working hours” when employees are at work, including duty-free time. Given the ambiguity, the Board found the Court’s rule banning solicitation during “working hours” ambiguous and overly broad. While “Working time is for work,” and an employer may therefore prohibit solicitation during “working time,” an employer rule that prohibits solicitation or distribution during “working hours,” but makes no mention of duty-free times during “working hours,” such as meal or rest periods, when employees may solicit one another or distribute literature, may reasonably be interpreted as authoring no such activities during those duty-free periods of the day. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 140 | 02/27/17 |
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.
