City of Sacramento (PERB 2702M)

1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39,
Charging Party, 	Case No. SA-CE-1009-M
v. 	PERB Decision No. 2702-M
March 25, 2020	CITY OF SACRAMENTO,
Respondent.
Appearance: Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Stewart Weinberg, Attorney, for
Stationary Engineers Local 39.
Before Banks, Shiners, and Krantz, Members.
DECISION
SHINERS, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on exceptions by Stationary Engineers Local 39 (Local 39) to
the proposed decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ). The complaint alleged, in
relevant part, that the City of Sacramento (City) interfered with employee and
employee organization rights in violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)1
when it implemented a policy prohibiting its Maintenance Services Division employees
from placing stickers, decals, or paint on their hardhats or helmets. Following an
evidentiary hearing, the ALJ dismissed the allegation, finding the policy was justified
by the City’s legitimate concerns for employee safety.
________________________
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless
otherwise specified, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

2
Based on our review of the proposed decision, the entire record, and relevant
legal authority in light of Local 39’s exceptions, we conclude the City failed to
demonstrate the existence of special circumstances that would justify its total
prohibition of union insignia on employees’ hardhats.2 Accordingly, we find the City
violated the MMBA as alleged in the complaint.3
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The City is a public agency employer within the meaning of section 3501,
subdivision (c) and PERB Regulation 32016, subdivision (a).4 The Maintenance
Services Division (MSD), a division of the Department of Public Works, is responsible
for the City’s street-related infrastructure system and consists of seven separate
maintenance subsections. Local 39 is a recognized employee organization under
________________________
2 A hardhat is a type of helmet. We intend all references to helmets and
hardhats to be interchangeable, except in several circumstances below where context
dictates otherwise.
3 The complaint also alleged, and the ALJ found, that the City violated its duty
to meet and confer in good faith when it unilaterally implemented the challenged
policy. Despite prevailing on this issue, Local 39 excepts to several of the ALJ’s
factual and legal conclusions supporting her finding of an unlawful unilateral change.
“Absent good cause, the Board will dismiss as without merit any initial exceptions filed
by a prevailing party unless the Board’s ruling on the exceptions would change the
outcome of the ALJ decision.” (Fremont Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision
No. 1528, p. 3.) Even if we were to agree the ALJ’s underlying conclusions were
wrong in the manner urged by Local 39, this would not change the outcome or the
remedial order with respect to the unilateral change allegation. Accordingly, we
dismiss Local 39’s exceptions on the unilateral change issue, and incorporate the
ALJ’s proposed order on that issue into our revised remedial order and Notice.
4 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001.

3
section 3501, subdivision (b) and an exclusive representative under PERB Regulation
32016, subdivision (b).
The City and Local 39 were parties to a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
effective December 28, 2013, through June 23, 2017. MOU Article 17 describes the
City’s obligation to provide certain bargaining unit employees with uniforms and those
employees’ obligation to “adhere to the uniform policy of the division and/or
Department.” MOU Article 18 similarly addresses the City’s provision of safety shoes,
safety climbing boots, and safety glasses. For purposes of general workplace safety,
MOU Article 19 explains that the City will receive and consider written safety
recommendations and “other safety ideas in the area of working conditions” from its
employees and Local 39. Neither these articles nor any other MOU article reference
hardhats.
MSD Policies and Procedures describe a variety of personal protective
equipment, including hardhats, that the City provides to employees or otherwise
requires them to wear. Section 5.2.7 requires employees to wear hardhats during any
work activity that may expose them to a head injury. Under the policies and
procedures, supervisors are responsible for the safety of employees at their worksite
and may suspend any work that exposes employees to risk of head injury until they
are wearing their hardhats.
All seven MSD sections are required to use hardhats. Six of the seven sections
exclusively use a white, full-brimmed hardhat manufactured by ERB Industries and

4
bearing the City seal.5 ERB affixes the seal to the hardhat using a pad printing
process (i.e., applying ink directly to the hardhat) before it ships the hardhat to the
City. Instructions accompanying the ERB hardhat warn never to alter or modify the
hardhat’s shell, and advise users to inspect the hardhat before each use and replace it
at the first sign of wear, aging, or other signs of deterioration. An ERB warning label
inside each hardhat states: “Do not paint or clean with solvents or gasoline. Do not
apply adhesive. These chemicals may weaken the shell.” (Italics added.) The City
has provided employees with the same ERB hardhat for over 10 years, and the
manufacturer has not modified the helmet in that period.
MSD employees sometimes attach headlamps to their hardhats to increase
their visibility on the worksite.6 The headlamps are placed on the hardhat in the
approximate location of the City seal, affixed to it with clips and removable adhesive.
Although it may be installed and removed for each use, it is common practice for
employees to keep the headlamp attached to the hardhat.
Employees in the MSD Urban Forestry section are issued hardhats or helmets,
depending on their assignment. The City provides an ERB hardhat to employees
assigned to ground operations. Employees assigned to aerial operations, e.g.,
climbing and pruning trees, are provided an orange helmet manufactured by Petzl,
which differs in appearance and function from the ERB hardhat and is designed for
________________________
5 As discussed post, the seventh section—the Urban Forestry section—uses
both the ERB hardhat and a different helmet manufactured by Petzl.
6 Employees working on the City light rail system are required to wear
headlamps on the jobsite so they can be observed and accounted for when trains
approach.

5
work at height. Petzl delivers the helmet to the City without the City seal or any other
markings on it. Urban Forester Kevin Hocker (Hocker)7 explained that the City does
not apply the seal to the Petzl helmet because it lacks the ability to do so “in a way
that would fit with the manufacturer’s recommendations.”
A pamphlet accompanying each Petzl helmet includes instructions to adjust the
helmet’s fit, mount headlamps, and for inspection, storage, and cleaning. Both the
instructions and recommended inspection procedures caution against applying
chemical adhesives or stickers to Petzl helmets, except those supplied or
recommended by the manufacturer. Petzl’s care and maintenance tips also prohibit
modification of the helmets outside of Petzl facilities unless the user is replacing worn
parts with newer parts from the manufacturer, as well as warn against applying any
stickers other than those supplied by Petzl.
All MSD employees are expected to inspect their hardhat each day before use.
Ultimately, though, their supervisors and management are responsible for deciding
whether to retire or replace a hardhat. Gabriel Morales (Morales), one of two MSD
Operations General Supervisors during the relevant time period, described this as a
judgment call made after considering both the manufacturer’s recommendations and
employee feedback about the hardhat.8
________________________
7 Hocker is one of two Urban Forestry section managers. He oversees a group
of three Arborists. The other section manager oversees approximately 20 Tree
Pruning Supervisors, Tree Pruners, and Tree Maintenance Workers.
8 In addition to routine checks before each use, Petzl’s recommended
inspection procedures advise a more detailed inspection every 12 months. However,
there is no evidence in the record that the City or MSD performed such inspections.

6
In or about November 2016, Morales began researching whether the MSD
could provide a different hardhat to its employees, one that was lighter, cooler, and
more comfortable for the employees. He conducted research on the Internet,
including the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration’s website. He also submitted inquiries to ERB Industries via e-mail.
During his research, Morales found hardhat inspection procedures recommending
examination of the shell for signs of wear, cracks, or deterioration that would require
the immediate replacement of a hardhat. Morales became concerned that it was
unsafe to adorn the hardhats with any stickers, decals, or paint because these
substances could damage the hardhats and hinder their inspection for signs of wear,
cracks, and other deterioration. Following his research, Morales discussed his
findings and concerns with other MSD section managers.
On or about April 13, 2017,9 MSD began to distribute a memorandum from
MSD Streets Manager Juan Montanez (Montanez) to some employees entitled
“WEAR OF HARDHATS.” Based on concerns regarding employees’ prior use of
hardhats, the memorandum required that all MSD employees wear hardhats when
performing specified duties. Noting that this requirement was in addition to Section
5.2.7 of the MSD Policies and Procedures, the memorandum stated, in relevant part:
“Employees will only wear city-issued white hardhats, with
city seal. 	Acceptable hardhat styles are either short front
brim or full brim. So as not to compromise the integrity of the
protective shell, hardhats must be free of stickers, decals, or
________________________
9 All further dates refer to 2017 unless otherwise noted.

7
any other markings (except for the city seal) and not be
painted.”10
Prior to April 13, MSD did not have a written policy regarding the placement of
stickers or paint on hardhats. Employees were and are, however, permitted to wear
union pins and other insignia on their work uniforms, and there is no City policy
preventing employees from placing union insignia on personal property, such as lunch
boxes.
On April 18, Morales and Jose Sanchez (Sanchez), the second MSD
Operations General Supervisor, notified Local 39 Business Representative Laura
Trapp (Trapp) of the updated hardhat policy and explained that they would present it
to MSD pavement employees during a monthly safety meeting scheduled on April 20.
Trapp requested a copy of the policy, and Sanchez e-mailed a draft copy of the
memorandum to her later that day.11
On April 19, Trapp e-mailed Sanchez, asserting that the City’s hardhat policy
would infringe on employees’ rights to place union insignia on their hardhats.12
Morales responded that day, confirming, among other things, that he would issue the
memorandum to all pavement employees at the next day’s safety meeting. That
evening, Trapp recommended to Morales that he not distribute the memorandum to
________________________
10 The hardhat policy also applied to Urban Forestry employees who wore Petzl
helmets.
11 Sanchez provided Trapp with an earlier draft of the memorandum, dated
April 6. Despite minor textual differences between the April 6 and 13 memoranda, the
substantive message was the same.
12 Trapp included Morales and City Labor Relations Officer Don Demavivas
(Demavivas) among the carbon copy (cc:) recipients.

8
any employees because, among other reasons, she was concerned by the prohibition
of stickers. Later that night, Morales responded:
“Over my 20+ years of service with the [C]ity’s pavement
maintenance section there’s been many near miss head
injuries which could [have] resulted in severe injuries to [C]ity
employees. 	There’s 	also 	been 	some 	instances 	where
employees were struck by objects on their head. Luckily the
employees were wearing a [hardhat] at the time. 	In our
industry, the risk of a head injury is real. [I] personally have
struck 	overhead 	objects 	on 	my 	head 	while 	closing
floodgates. Luckily I was wearing my [hardhat] at the time.
“[¶] . . . [¶]
“Once again, the safety of our employees should and will
always be our top priority. 	Therefore we will move forward
in 	issuing 	the 	[hardhat] 	memo 	tomorrow 	with 	the
understanding that the sticker issue will be discussed as
soon as you make time to meet with us. Thanks in advance
for your understanding.”
On April 20, Demavivas e-mailed Trapp, Morales, Sanchez, and Montanez,
stating, in relevant part:
“With 	regard 	to 	the 	hardhat 	being 	clean, 	. 	. 	. 	[i]t 	is
management’s right to determine whether or not City owned
property could have stickers on it because stickers add such
permanency. It’s not like a union button that you can take on
and off.
“In addition, I believe there are periodic inspections to see if
there are cracks or damage on the hardhat and any stickers
have the potential to cover that up.”
On May 8, Local 39 filed the instant unfair practice charge against the City.

9
DISCUSSION
California public employees have long had the right to wear union insignia in
the workplace. (E.g., Superior Court v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2018) 30
Cal.App.5th 158, 172 (Superior Court); Regents of the University of California (2018)
PERB Decision No. 2616-H, p. 9 (Regents); East Whittier School District (2004)
PERB Decision No. 1727, p. 9 (East Whittier); State of California (Department of
Parks and Recreation) (1993) PERB Decision No. 1026-S, p. 4 (Parks).) But that right
is not unlimited and may be subject to reasonable regulation. (County of Sacramento
(2014) PERB Decision No. 2393-M, p. 20; Parks, supra, PERB Decision No. 1026-S,
p. 4.)
A restriction on the right to display union insignia and messages regarding
working conditions is presumptively invalid; an employer may prohibit employees from
displaying union insignia and messages in the workplace only if “special
circumstances” exist justifying the prohibition. (Regents, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2616-H, p. 10; Parks, supra, PERB Decision No. 1026-S, p. 4.) The special
circumstances test, adopted from Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB (1945) 324 U.S.
793,13 seeks to balance employees’ statutory right to freely voice their perspectives
and employers’ duty to provide important public services. (Regents, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2616-H, p. 10; East Whittier, supra, PERB Decision No. 1727, pp. 9-11.)
________________________
13 Although federal judicial and administrative precedent is not binding on
PERB, it often provides persuasive guidance in construing California’s public sector
labor relations statutes. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2670-M,
p. 19, fn. 20 & p. 28; Capistrano Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision
No. 2440, p. 15, citing Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608, 616-
617.)

10
“[T]he employer has the burden of establishing that its policy or rule is justified
by special circumstances.” (Superior Court, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 172; East
Whittier, supra, PERB Decision No. 1727, p. 11.) “This analysis is done through a
case-by-case approach that considers the particulars of the employer’s operations.”
(Superior Court, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 172; East Whittier, supra, PERB Decision
No. 1727, p. 10.) To abrogate employees’ otherwise absolute right to display union
insignia, the employer must make a “concrete, fact-based evidentiary showing” that
special circumstances exist. (County of Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2393-M, p. 27.)
PERB has articulated several factors to be considered in determining whether
special circumstances exist, including whether the insignia could jeopardize employee
safety, disrupt employee discipline (e.g., exacerbate employee dissention or cause
distraction from work demanding great concentration), or negatively affect the
employer (e.g., damage machinery, products, or a certain image necessarily projected
for the public). (County of Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2393-M, p. 23;
East Whittier, supra, PERB Decision No. 1727, p. 11, citing Pay'n Save Corp. v. NLRB
(9th Cir. 1981) 641 F.2d 697, 700; Parks, supra, PERB Decision No. 1026-S, p. 5.)
Also important is the specific context in which the prohibition was enacted or enforced,
the locations involved, and the parties’ past practice. (Regents, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2616-H, p. 15.)
On the rare occasions when PERB has addressed safety as a justification for
an employer’s ban of union insignia, it found the employer did not meet its evidentiary
burden in establishing special circumstances. For instance, in Parks, supra, PERB

11
Decision No. 1026-S, the record failed to show that a union button by its design
created a safety or health issue, or significantly altered the employees’ uniform in a
way that could lead to safety problems.14 (Id. at pp. 5-6.)
In County of Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2393-M, the employer
failed to establish special circumstances where it did not introduce “one scintilla of
evidence” regarding safety issues with any union insignia previously worn by
firefighters. (Id. at pp. 31-32.) We cited with approval non-California authority holding
that a history of insignia in the workplace without resulting incidents is relevant to
determining whether special circumstances exist, and that even a six-month history
was an “important point” in finding that a correctional institution’s need to protect
inmate and officer safety did not justify its insignia policy. (Id. at pp. 27-28, fn. 32.)
We also found it relevant that other municipal fire departments permitted firefighters to
wear union insignia, and we presumed, in the absence of contrary evidence, that there
had been no operational problems when firefighters had worn union insignia in the
past, including during Breast Cancer Awareness month. (Id. at pp. 30-31.)
________________________
14 We also noted that even though alternative means of communication might
be available, “this does not make buttons any less legitimate” as a form of
communication. (Parks, supra, PERB Decision No. 1026-S, p. 6.) Nonetheless, in
determining whether special circumstances exist, the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) has considered employees’ ability to place union insignia on their clothing and
personal property, but only when the employer has demonstrated a legitimate safety
concern about union insignia on hardhats. (Andrews Wire Corp. (1971) 189 NLRB
108, 109; Standard Oil Co. (1967) 168 NLRB 153, fn. 1.) We need not decide whether
to follow the NLRB’s approach on this point because in the instant case, as discussed
post, the City failed to sufficiently demonstrate any safety justification for its sticker
ban. Therefore, it is of no consequence that the City allows MSD employees to
display union insignia on their clothing and personal property.

12
The NLRB has addressed safety justifications for banning stickers on hardhats
on several occasions. In many of these cases, the employer asserted that stickers
impaired management’s visibility of the hardhat on the jobsite or made it more difficult
to see employer-approved stickers conveying information such as an employee’s
qualifications to operate particular machinery or provide emergency medical
treatment. (See, e.g., Allstate Power Vac, Inc. (2009) 354 NLRB No. 111 (Allstate);15
Albis Plastics (2001) 335 NLRB 923; Eastern Omni Constructors, Inc. (1997) 324
NLRB 652, enforced (4th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 418.)
Fewer are the cases in which the employer asserts, as the City does here, that
banning stickers is necessary to prevent damage to hardhats. In Malta Construction
Company (1985) 276 NLRB 1494, the employer failed to produce any evidence
showing the ban was necessary to prevent hardhat damage, leading the NLRB to
refrain from addressing the issue. (Id. at p. 1495.)
In Northeast Industrial Service Company, Inc. (1996) 320 NLRB 977
(Northeast), the employer argued that stickers could prevent discovery of cracks,
gouges, and dents in the hardhat. (Id. at p. 978.) The NLRB first noted that the
stickers in question ranged in diameter from one to three inches, and that even the
largest of these sizes would cover less than ten percent of the hardhat’s surface. (Id.
at p. 980.) There was no evidence of safety issues when the employer had previously
permitted a similarly sized sticker. (Ibid.) Moreover, the NLRB found it significant that
the employer had not shown such a great safety-related concern as to institute close,
________________________
15 In County of Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2393-M, p. 25, we cited
with approval Allstate’s decision invalidating an employer’s ban on placing union
stickers on hardhats.

13
regular hardhat inspections. (Ibid.) The record instead demonstrated that the
employer merely relied on supervisors and safety personnel, as they walked through
jobsites, to conduct “casual inspections.” (Id. at pp. 978, 980.) For these reasons, the
NLRB found that the employer’s safety concerns did not constitute special
circumstances justifying the sticker ban.
Here, the record does not establish any safety issues that foreseeably could
arise from stickers being placed on hardhats or helmets. In fact, the City’s practices
undermine its stated safety concerns.
First, although Petzl recommends each of its helmets undergo a detailed
inspection every 12 months, neither the MOU nor MSD Policies and Procedures
prescribe any regular inspection of hardhats or helmets. Morales testified that all MSD
employees are expected to inspect their hardhat each day before use but provided no
information regarding how closely they inspected their hardhats or whether they met
that expectation at all. Instead, he described the supervisors’ decision to replace a
damaged hardhat as a judgment call based on the manufacturer’s recommendations
and employee feedback. The City clearly has not “shown so great a safety-related
concern for dented, gouged, or otherwise damaged hardhats that it would institute
regular and closer inspections of them.” (Northeast, supra, 320 NLRB at p. 980.)
Instead, the City relied on casual inspections by the equipment operators and
supervisors at the job site, which weighs against finding a safety concern that would
constitute special circumstances. (Ibid.)
Second, it is undisputed that MSD employees working on the City light rail
system sometimes attach headlamps to their hardhats, affixing the headlamp with

14
clips and removable adhesive. The City presented no evidence that the adhesive
used to affix the headlamps had been supplied by the manufacturer, as both ERB and
Petzl instruct; had damaged the hardhats; or had prevented employees from detecting
such damage. In the absence of any such evidence, we must presume there have
been no safety issues resulting from the affixing of headlamps to employees’
hardhats. (County of Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2393-M, pp. 30-31.)
This history of adhesive use on hardhats without incident also weighs against finding
special circumstances. (Id. at pp. 27-31; Northeast, supra, 320 NLRB at p. 980; see
Regents, supra, PERB Decision No. 2616-H, pp. 18-19 [finding that history of
employees displaying union messages on stickers and buttons without incident
weighed against finding that a ban on a particular union sticker was justified by special
circumstances].)
We do not suggest that an employer must wait until an actual injury occurs
before banning union insignia for safety reasons. (Eastern Omni Constructors, Inc. v.
NLRB, supra, 170 F.3d at p. 425.) But to establish safety-based special
circumstances to support such a ban, the employer must present concrete evidence
that employee safety is foreseeably threatened by displaying the union insignia
(Parks, supra, PERB Decision No. 1026-S, pp. 5-6), and that it has acted consistently
with its stated concern (County of Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2393-M,
pp. 27-31; see Albis Plastics, supra, 335 NLRB at p. 924 [“When an employer asserts
that it has curtailed the right to wear union insignia on hardhats based on safety
concerns, the [NLRB] examines the conditions in the workplace to determine if there is
a showing that the circumstances necessitate the curtailment.”].)

15
Here, the City failed to carry its burden of establishing safety-based special
circumstances justifying its policy completely banning stickers, decals, and paint on
MSD employees’ hardhats and helmets. We therefore reverse the proposed decision
and find the City’s policy unlawfully interfered with employees’ and Local 39’s rights
under the MMBA.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire
record in this case, it is found that the City of Sacramento (City) violated the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA or Act), Government Code section 3500 et seq., and PERB
Regulations 31001 et seq. when it unilaterally implemented a policy prohibiting
employees from placing any stickers, decals, or paint, including union insignia, on their
hardhats without meeting and conferring in good faith with the employees’ exclusive
representative, Stationary Engineers Local 39 (Local 39).
Pursuant to Government Code section 3509, subdivision (b), it is hereby
ORDERED that the City, its governing board, and its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and refusing to meet and confer in good faith with Local 39
before implementing a new hardhat policy prohibiting employees from wearing any
stickers, decals, or paint on hardhats.
2. 	Interfering with the right of bargaining unit employees to be
represented by Local 39.
3. 	Denying Local 39 its right to represent bargaining unit employees
in their employment relations with the City.

16
4. 	Interfering with the protected rights of bargaining unit employees
and Local 39 by prohibiting employees from placing stickers or decals bearing union
messages and insignia on their hardhats.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
1. 	Rescind the April 6 and 13, 2017 memoranda entitled “WEAR OF
HARDHATS.”
2. 	Meet and confer with Local 39 before implementing a new hardhat
policy.
3. 	Within 10 workdays following the date this Decision is no longer
subject to appeal, post at all work locations where notices to City employees in the
Operations and Maintenance bargaining unit are customarily posted, copies of the
Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an authorized
agent of the City, indicating that it will comply with the terms of this Order. Such
posting shall be maintained for a period of 30 consecutive workdays. The Notice shall
also be posted by electronic message, intranet, internet site, and other electronic
means customarily used by the City to communicate with Operations and Maintenance
bargaining unit employees. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the Notice
is not reduced in size, altered, defaced, or covered with any other material.
4. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order
shall be made to the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board, or
the General Counsel’s designee. The City shall provide reports, in writing, as directed

17
by the General Counsel or his designee. All reports regarding compliance with this
Order shall be concurrently served on Local 39.
Members Banks and Krantz joined in this Decision.

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST 30
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. SA-CE-1009-M, Stationary
Engineers Local 39 v. City of Sacramento, in which all parties had the right to
participate, it has been found that the City of Sacramento (City) violated the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code section 3500 et seq., and PERB
Regulations 31001 et seq., when it unilaterally implemented a policy prohibiting
employees from placing any stickers, decals, or paint, including union insignia, on their
hardhats without meeting and conferring in good faith with the employees’ exclusive
representative, Stationary Engineers Local 39 (Local 39). By this conduct, the City
also interfered with the right of employees to be represented by Local 39 and denied
Local 39 its right to represent employees.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we
will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and refusing to meet and confer in good faith with Local 39
before implementing a new hardhat policy prohibiting employees from wearing any
stickers, decals, or paint on hardhats.
2. 	Interfering with the right of bargaining unit employees to be
represented by Local 39.
3. 	Denying Local 39 its right to represent bargaining unit employees
in their employment relations with the City.
4. 	Interfering with the protected rights of bargaining unit employees
and Local 39 by prohibiting employees from placing stickers or decals bearing union
messages and insignia on their hardhats.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Rescind the April 6 and 13, 2017 memoranda entitled “WEAR OF
HARDHATS.”
2. 	Meet and confer with Local 39 before implementing a new hardhat
policy.
Dated: _____________________ 	CITY OF SACRAMENTO
By: _________________________________
Authorized Agent