| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A481E |
Gompers Preparatory Academy
601.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
Because an employer’s refusal or failure to bargain in good faith during first contract negotiations typically has a more deleterious effect on employee support for the nascent union than it would in a well-established collective bargaining relationship, PERB applies a higher level of scrutiny to bad faith bargaining claims in the context of first-contract negotiations. (pp. 5-6.) In the context of first-contract bargaining, employee disaffection with the union is a natural and probable consequence of the employer’s bad faith bargaining, particularly when accompanied by other unfair practices such as unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment and refusal to provide information to the union. (p. 7.) An employer may not engage in unlawful dilatory bargaining conduct during first contract bargaining so the one-year certification bar will expire without a contract in place, thereby allowing the filing of a decertification petition. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 54 | 10/22/20 |
| A481E |
Gompers Preparatory Academy
601.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
Because an employer’s refusal or failure to bargain in good faith during first contract negotiations typically has a more deleterious effect on employee support for the nascent union than it would in a well-established collective bargaining relationship, PERB applies a higher level of scrutiny to bad faith bargaining claims in the context of first-contract negotiations. (pp. 5-6.) In the context of first-contract bargaining, employee disaffection with the union is a natural and probable consequence of the employer’s bad faith bargaining, particularly when accompanied by other unfair practices such as unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment and refusal to provide information to the union. (p. 7.) An employer may not engage in unlawful dilatory bargaining conduct during first contract bargaining so the one-year certification bar will expire without a contract in place, thereby allowing the filing of a decertification petition. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 54 | 10/22/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
1105.06000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE; Hearsay
Union witness testimony, recounting conversation with his superior, falls within the party admission exception to hearsay, because superior was an agent of the City. (Bellflower Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2385, p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
1104.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ; Motions
The Teamsters’ motion to amend the complaint during the hearing was appropriate under PERB Regulation 32648, which provides that the Board agent shall permit an amendment if the Board agent determines that amendment of the charge and complaint is appropriate. In determining the appropriateness of the amendment, the Board agent shall consider, among other factors, the possibility of prejudice to the respondent. The Board found that even if the addition of a new theory of liability based on conduct that occurred more than two years prior—but not discovered by Teamsters until three months before its motion to amend—would constitute prejudice, any such prejudice was dispelled because the City had four months to prepare to defend against the new interference allegations, which were fully litigated during the remaining days of hearing. (See Eastern Municipal Water District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2715-M, p. 8 [“Even if an amended pleading would prejudice the other party, it is appropriate to grant the requested amendment if the ALJ can order accommodations that sufficiently alleviate the prejudice, typically a continuance that allows additional time to prepare the case.”].) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine
Under the relation-back doctrine, a charging party may amend a charge to add alleged violations that it discovered more than six months earlier “if the amended charges are closely related to the actions in the original charge.” (Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2381, p. 37, quoting Gonzales Union High School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 410, pp. 19-20.) Because the Union raised the interference allegations within six months of discovering management’s’ e-mails, PERB did not need to determine whether the relation back doctrine would apply to these facts. more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine
The MMBA generally precludes PERB from issuing a complaint based on an unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1089-1092.) However, the limitations period begins to run once the charging party knew or reasonably should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Raines, et al.) (2016) PERB Decision No. 2475, p. 57.) The Union’s amendment of its charge to add an interference claim was not barred by the statute of limitations where there was no dispute that the Union first learned of management’s internal e-mails (which formed the basis for the interference charge) by virtue of the City’s response to a subpoena, well within the six months prior to the Union’s request to amend the complaint. more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
700.07000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Favoritism; Contract Ban on Distribution or Solicitation; Unequal Treatment of Unions; Preferential Access; Duty of Strict Neutrality
MMBA section 3506.5, subdivision (d) proscribes public agencies from “interfer[ing] with the . . . administration of any employee organization.” While much PERB precedent addresses an employer’s duty to remain strictly neutral when two different employee organizations are in competition with each other, an employer also may violate this clause by interfering in an employee organization’s internal affairs, even in the absence of competing unions. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, pp. 22-34 (Arcadia).) To demonstrate such interference, a charging party must establish facts showing that the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the internal activities of an employee organization. (Arcadia, supra, PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 24.) An employer may not take a position on internal union affairs or put its thumb on the scale in favor of or against a particular union leader. (Id. at pp. 25-30.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
700.04000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Management Aid or Instigation in Forming Unions Committees, Etc.; Statements in General; Free Speech
MMBA section 3506.5, subdivision (d) proscribes public agencies from “interfer[ing] with the . . . administration of any employee organization.” While much PERB precedent addresses an employer’s duty to remain strictly neutral when two different employee organizations are in competition with each other, an employer also may violate this clause by interfering in an employee organization’s internal affairs, even in the absence of competing unions. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, pp. 22-34 (Arcadia).) To demonstrate such interference, a charging party must establish facts showing that the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the internal activities of an employee organization. (Arcadia, supra, PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 24.) An employer may not take a position on internal union affairs or put its thumb on the scale in favor of or against a particular union leader. (Id. at pp. 25-30.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
700.02000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; Domination vs Assistance
MMBA section 3506.5, subdivision (d) proscribes public agencies from “interfer[ing] with the . . . administration of any employee organization.” While much PERB precedent addresses an employer’s duty to remain strictly neutral when two different employee organizations are in competition with each other, an employer also may violate this clause by interfering in an employee organization’s internal affairs, even in the absence of competing unions. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, pp. 22-34 (Arcadia).) To demonstrate such interference, a charging party must establish facts showing that the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the internal activities of an employee organization. (Arcadia, supra, PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 24.) An employer may not take a position on internal union affairs or put its thumb on the scale in favor of or against a particular union leader. (Id. at pp. 25-30.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
700.01000: EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR ASSISTANCE; DOMINATION OF OR ASSISTANCE TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; In General
MMBA section 3506.5, subdivision (d) proscribes public agencies from “interfer[ing] with the . . . administration of any employee organization.” While much PERB precedent addresses an employer’s duty to remain strictly neutral when two different employee organizations are in competition with each other, an employer also may violate this clause by interfering in an employee organization’s internal affairs, even in the absence of competing unions. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, pp. 22-34 (Arcadia).) To demonstrate such interference, a charging party must establish facts showing that the employer’s conduct tends to interfere with the internal activities of an employee organization. (Arcadia, supra, PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 24.) An employer may not take a position on internal union affairs or put its thumb on the scale in favor of or against a particular union leader. (Id. at pp. 25-30.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
606.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Other
If an employer declares impasse without reaching a bona fide impasse after good faith negotiations, but the employer neither changes employment terms nor refuses to continue bargaining, the Board considers that evidence under the totality of conduct test. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571, p. 7, fn. 9; County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) In contrast, if the employer in those circumstances refuses to bargain further or proceeds to change employment terms, that constitutes further evidence of bad faith under the totality test, and it also constitutes a per se violation. (City of San Ramon, supra, p. 7, fn. 9; County of Riverside, supra, p. 11.) Here, the Board found the City did not take any such steps—it did not even declare impasse. more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
606.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Other
Where there is an obligation to do so, failure to return to the status quo, if proven, would be an indicator of bad faith. (County of Kern (2018) PERB Decision No. 2615-M, p. 11, fn. 8 [restoring the status quo is a necessary condition for meaningful bargaining to occur]; City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571, p. 15 [good faith bargaining is not possible when employer has already “imposed the very terms under discussion, thereby forcing [the union] to start from a position of having to talk the [employer] back to the status quo.”]; City of Palo Alto (2017) PERB Decision No. 2388a-M, p. 49 [compelling a union to bargain back to the status quo makes impossible the give and take that is the essence of good faith bargaining]; County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, p. 24 [bargaining “from a hole” is futile, and restoring the status quo is necessary so that “bargaining may proceed on a level playing field.”].) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
606.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Predictably Unacceptable Offer
“Making proposals that are predictably unacceptable to the other party is a well-established indicium of bad faith bargaining.” (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2018) PERB Decision No. 2558, p. 33.) The Board noted that the City’s opening proposal was identical, or nearly so, to the policy which led to the dispute, but found the City’s proposal was not predictably unacceptable where the City showed flexibility on the proposal from the outset and the City’s conduct did not frustrate negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
606.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; In General
If an employer declares impasse without reaching a bona fide impasse after good faith negotiations, but the employer neither changes employment terms nor refuses to continue bargaining, the Board considers that evidence under the totality of conduct test. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571, p. 7, fn. 9; County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) In contrast, if the employer in those circumstances refuses to bargain further or proceeds to change employment terms, that constitutes further evidence of bad faith under the totality test, and it also constitutes a per se violation. (City of San Ramon, supra, p. 7, fn. 9; County of Riverside, supra, p. 11.) Here, the Board found the City did not take any such steps—it did not even declare impasse. more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
606.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; In General
In determining whether a party has violated its duty to meet and confer in good faith, PERB uses a “per se” test or a “totality of the conduct” analysis, depending on the specific conduct involved and its effect on the negotiating process. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 34 (Arcadia).) Per se violations generally involve conduct that violates statutory rights or procedural bargaining norms. (Id. at pp. 34-35.) The totality of conduct test applies to bad faith bargaining allegations that our precedent has not identified as constituting a per se refusal to bargain. (Id. at p. 35.) Under this test, the Board looks to the entire course of negotiations, including the parties’ conduct at and away from the table, to determine whether the respondent has bargained in good faith. (Ibid.) The ultimate question is whether the respondent’s conduct, when viewed in its totality, was sufficiently egregious to frustrate negotiations. (Ibid.) A single indicator of bad faith, if egregious, can be a sufficient basis for finding that a negotiating party has failed to bargain in good faith. (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
601.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
In determining whether a party has violated its duty to meet and confer in good faith, PERB uses a “per se” test or a “totality of the conduct” analysis, depending on the specific conduct involved and its effect on the negotiating process. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 34 (Arcadia).) Per se violations generally involve conduct that violates statutory rights or procedural bargaining norms. (Id. at pp. 34-35.) The totality of conduct test applies to bad faith bargaining allegations that our precedent has not identified as constituting a per se refusal to bargain. (Id. at p. 35.) Under this test, the Board looks to the entire course of negotiations, including the parties’ conduct at and away from the table, to determine whether the respondent has bargained in good faith. (Ibid.) The ultimate question is whether the respondent’s conduct, when viewed in its totality, was sufficiently egregious to frustrate negotiations. (Ibid.) A single indicator of bad faith, if egregious, can be a sufficient basis for finding that a negotiating party has failed to bargain in good faith. (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
505.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; In General
Because the record revealed dual motives, PERB must determine if the District met its burden to show it would have taken identical action, even absent protected activity. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 27; San Diego Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2634, pp. 15-16.) This determination can involve weighing the evidence supporting the employer’s justification against the evidence of the employer’s unlawful motive, in order to determine what would more likely than not have occurred in the absence of protected activity. (San Diego Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2666, p. 7.) The Board found that Fire Chief was already contemplating the change to the composition of the City’s elite swiftwater rescue team for legitimate reasons that predated any protected activity. Accordingly, the Board found that the City established its affirmative defense—that it would have taken exactly the same action at the same time even absent any protected activity—by a preponderance of the evidence. more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
505.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; In General
To resolve a union’s retaliation claim, the Board must consider the employer’s motivations. In doing so, the Board keeps in mind that even when an employer has a managerial, statutory, or contractual right to take an employment action, its decision to act cannot be based on an unlawful motive, intent, or purpose. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2629-M, p. 13; County of Lassen (2018) PERB Decision No. 2612-M, p. 6; Berkeley Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1538, pp. 4-5.) The City prevailed on its affirmative defense where Board found that the Union established that discriminatory animus was a motivating factor in the Fire Chief’s decision to modify the composition of the City’s elite swiftwater rescue team (SWR Team), but the City demonstrated that it would have taken the same action, at the same time, even absent the Union’s protected activities. more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
To resolve a union’s retaliation claim, the Board must consider the employer’s motivations. In doing so, the Board keeps in mind that even when an employer has a managerial, statutory, or contractual right to take an employment action, its decision to act cannot be based on an unlawful motive, intent, or purpose. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2629-M, p. 13; County of Lassen (2018) PERB Decision No. 2612-M, p. 6; Berkeley Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1538, pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
503.05000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; Transfer, Promotion, or Demotion; Work Assignments and Opportunities
Reducing work opportunities constitutes an adverse action. (See, e.g., El Dorado Union High School District (1986) Decision No. 564, pp. 21-25 [district engaged in adverse action by declining to offer bus drivers an opportunity to drive on weekend trips and instead arranging travel via Greyhound].) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General
PERB precedent provides that a threat of action and carrying out the action are separate adverse acts. (San Diego Unified School District (2017) PERB Decision No. 2538, pp. 12-13; City of Davis (2016) PERB Decision No. 2494, p. 42; Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1585-H, pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General
PERB uses an objective test to determine whether an employer’s action is adverse. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 19 (San Francisco), citing Chula Vista Elementary School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2586, pp. 24-25 (Chula Vista).) “The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee found the employer’s action to be adverse, but whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.” (San Francisco, at pp. 19-20, citing Chula Vista, at p. 25 (internal citation omitted).) Context is highly relevant in determining whether non-punitive directives are adverse. (San Diego Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2683, p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the charging party has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 15 ) If the charging party meets its burden to establish each of these factors, certain fact patterns nonetheless allow a respondent the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the exact same action even absent protected activity. (Ibid.) This affirmative defense is most typically available when, even though the charging party has established that protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action, the evidence also reveals a non-discriminatory motivation for the same decision. (Id. at pp. 15-16.) In such “mixed motive” or “dual motive” cases, the question becomes whether the adverse action would not have occurred “but for” the protected activity. (Id. at p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
409.06000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Free Speech
In evaluating whether employer speech constitutes interference with protected rights, “the Board will look to the surrounding circumstances in which employer speech occurs, including the employer’s power to control terms and conditions of employment and the economic dependence of employees on the employer, to determine whether, when viewed in context, employer speech conveys a threat of reprisal or force, a promise of benefit or a preference for one employee organization over another.” (Hartnell Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2452, p. 25.) E-mail from manager to unit member fell outside the range of permissible employer speech in two respects. First, it was coercive in that it suggested that employees may lose desirable assignments due to protected activity. Next, management e-mail suggested that employee might avoid adverse action and/or obtain preferential treatment for opposing union leadership. It is of no consequence whether unit member shared manager’s e-mails with any other employees or Union representatives. Manager’s coercion was unlawful even if no one other than unit member receiving e-mail knew of it. (See, e.g., Claremont Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2654, pp. 19-24 [district’s conduct interfered with a single employee’s statutory rights]; Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834, p. 13 [a brief statement made only to one person is sufficient to support an interference claim].) Furthermore, employer’s e-mail also tended to interfere with others’ protected conduct given the possibility that unit member might forward it to other employees or share the message contained in the e-mail. more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M |
City of San Diego
405.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES; In General
In evaluating whether employer speech constitutes interference with protected rights, “the Board will look to the surrounding circumstances in which employer speech occurs, including the employer’s power to control terms and conditions of employment and the economic dependence of employees on the employer, to determine whether, when viewed in context, employer speech conveys a threat of reprisal or force, a promise of benefit or a preference for one employee organization over another.” (Hartnell Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2452, p. 25.) E-mail from manager to unit member fell outside the range of permissible employer speech in two respects. First, it was coercive in that it suggested that employees may lose desirable assignments due to protected activity. Next, management e-mail suggested that employee might avoid adverse action and/or obtain preferential treatment for opposing union leadership. It is of no consequence whether unit member shared manager’s e-mails with any other employees or Union representatives. Manager’s coercion was unlawful even if no one other than unit member receiving e-mail knew of it. (See, e.g., Claremont Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2654, pp. 19-24 [district’s conduct interfered with a single employee’s statutory rights]; Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834, p. 13 [a brief statement made only to one person is sufficient to support an interference claim].) Furthermore, employer’s e-mail also tended to interfere with others’ protected conduct given the possibility that unit member might forward it to other employees or share the message contained in the e-mail. more or view all topics or full text. |
45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
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.
