Disciplinary and investigatory interviews are an unavoidable part of managing a public workforce. When a represented employee is questioned in a setting that could lead to discipline or involving highly unusual circumstances that may significantly impact the employer-employee relationship, the employee may invoke the right to union representation. The right is grounded in both PERB
During a Starbucks “listening session,” in 2022, in response to an employee’s attempt to discuss the benefits of unionization and Starbucks’ alleged unfair labor practices at other stores, former CEO Howard Schultz proclaimed, “If you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can go work for another company.” The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that the
Public agencies often find themselves caught between two important obligations: protecting confidential information and fulfilling legal requirements for transparency. Questions commonly arise about when—and how much—sensitive information can be redacted without running afoul of the law. This blog post addresses some of the most common redaction scenarios involving California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) requests, union
Since the 2018 United States Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME prohibited public sector labor unions from charging agency fees to non-members, public sector labor unions have sought methods to incentivize union membership. For example, the state legislature recently amended the Meyers Milias Brown Act permitting labor unions who represent public safety officers to
Senate Bill (SB) 399, the “California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act” (“Act”), will prohibit compelled attendance at employer-mandated meetings to discuss political and religious matters, including the decision to join or support a labor union. The Act adds the new Labor Code section 1137, and is effective January 1, 2025.
Prohibition Against Employer-Mandated Political