Trustees of the California State University (PERB 2522H)

________________________
SEAL OF THE STAR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA
Appearances: Brian Young, Lead Labor Relations Representative, for California State
University Employees Union; Leslie V. Freeman, Labor Relations Manager, Trustees of the
California State University.
Before Gregersen, Chair; Banks and Winslow, Members.
DECISION
BANKS, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on appeal by the California State University Employees Union (CSUEU) from the
dismissal of its unfair practice charge by PERB’s Office of the General Counsel. The charge,
as amended, alleged that the Trustees of the California State University (University) violated
section 3571, subdivision (a), of the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act
(HEERA)1 by terminating the employment of Erica Chavin (Chavin) in retaliation for her
protected activity of serving as a witness in support of a fellow employee’s complaint against a
supervisor. The amended charge also alleged that the University’s termination of Chavin and
its disregard of exculpatory evidence presented by Chavin on behalf of a CSUEU steward
1 HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. Unless otherwise stated,
all statutory references are to the Government Code.
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
EMPLOYEES UNION,
Charging Party,
v.
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-1244-H
PERB Decision No. 2522-H
March 20, 2017

________________________
constituted domination or interference with the formation or administration of an employee
organization, in violation of HEERA section 3571, subdivision (d). The Office of the General
Counsel determined that CSUEU’s charge failed to identify any cognizable protected activity
under HEERA and dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie case of discrimination
or retaliation. It did not address CSUEU’s allegation that the University had violated HEERA
section 3571, subdivision (d). For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the dismissal and
remand to the Office of the General Counsel for further investigation in accordance with this
Decision.
DISCUSSION
CSUEU’s appeal presents two issues: (1) whether PERB Regulations2 require an
investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning letter for each successive amendment
of a charge; and (2) whether providing assistance to a fellow employee in his or her individual
dispute with a supervisor constitutes protected activity within the meaning of HEERA
section 3565. Insofar as it is necessary to provide context, the factual allegations are discussed
below, as they relate to each of these issues and to CSUEU’s contentions on appeal.
I. 	Case Processing Issue: Whether PERB Must Provide a Separate Warning Letter for each
Version of an Amended Charge or for each Amendment to a Charge
CSUEU filed its original charge on June 1, 2015 and, following an investigation, PERB’s
Office of the General Counsel issued a warning letter on November 18, 2015, which advised
CSUEU that it had not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that Chavin had engaged in
protected activity. On November 30, 2015, CSUEU filed a first amended charge and, on
March 2, 2016, it filed a second amended charge. On March 23, 2016, the Office of the General
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2

Counsel dismissed the charge without providing an additional warning letter in response to either
the first or second amended charges.
On appeal, CSUEU first points to the requirements for a Board agent’s investigation of
an unfair practice under PERB Regulation 32620. The Regulation requires the investigating
Board agent to assist the charging party to state in proper form the information required for
stating a prima facie case, to answer procedural questions of each party, to facilitate
communication and the exchange of information between the parties, and to make inquiries and
review the charge and supporting materials before determining whether to issue a complaint,
dismiss some or all of the allegations in the charge, or defer the dispute to arbitration. The
Regulation also requires the investigating Board agent to “advise the charging party in writing
of any deficiencies in the charge in a warning letter, unless otherwise agreed by the Board
agent and the charging party, prior to dismissal of any allegations contained in the charge.”
(PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d).)
CSUEU also notes that PERB Regulation 32621 allows the charging party to amend its
charge or to file an amended charge “[b]efore the Board agent issues or refuses to issue a
complaint.” (PERB Reg. 32621; Sacramento Municipal Utility District (2006) PERB Decision
No. 1838-M (SMUD), pp. 2-3.) According to the Regulation, any amendment of a charge or an
amended charge “shall be processed pursuant to [Regulation] 32620.” (Ibid.) CSUEU argues
that, when read together, the Regulations governing the investigation of a charge and any
amendments to a charge require the investigating Board agent to provide a separate warning
letter responding to each successively-filed amendment to a charge or amended charge. We
disagree.
3

In Trustees of the California State University (2014) PERB Decision No. 2384-H
(Trustees of CSU), we noted that our Regulations place no limit on the number of times a
charging party may amend its charge before a warning letter issues or before the charge is
dismissed. Additionally, we held that the investigating Board agent is not free to dismiss or
disregard new information or allegations included in a timely amendment or amended charge
merely because they were not found in the original charge. (Trustees of CSU, supra, at pp. 19,
21-22; California State University (1990) PERB Decision No. 853-H, p. 7.) However, PERB
Regulations governing the investigation of unfair practice charges and Board review of
dismissals require the charging party to present its allegations and supporting evidence in the
first instance, so that the Board agent assigned to the case can fully investigate the charge before
deciding whether to issue a complaint or to dismiss or defer the case. (PERB Reg. 32635,
subd. (b); Regents of the University of California (2006) PERB Decision No. 1851-H, p. 2.)
Although the investigating Board agent must advise the charging party of any deficiencies in the
charge or amended charge prior to dismissal, our Regulations and decisional law do not
contemplate a game of infinite regress by requiring a separate warning letter responding to each
subsequent amendment to a charge. If, following a warning letter that adequately identifies the
deficiencies in a charge, subsequent amendments do not correct those deficiencies, dismissal is
appropriate. Unlike in Trustees of CSU, in the present case, the dismissal letter acknowledged
and discussed the additional information and new allegations included in CSUEU’s first and
second amended charges. Under these circumstances, we find no procedural error in the Office
of the General Counsel’s decision to forego issuing a second (or third) warning letter responding
to each amendment to the charge before deciding how to dispose of the charge.
4

We turn next to CSUEU’s second issue on appeal: whether, in dismissing CSUEU’s
charge for failure to state a prima facie case, the Office of the General Counsel disregarded
relevant factual allegations and improperly applied PERB Regulations and decisional law.
II. 	Whether the Charge States a Prima Facie Case of an Unfair Practice
A. 	PERB Case Processing Procedures and Board Review of Dismissal
Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential
facts (often described as the who, what, when, where and how of the charge) with sufficient
specificity to permit the investigating Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged
in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of
providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” (Eastside Union School District
(1984) PERB Decision No. 466, p. 7.) However, the Board and its agents, and not the parties,
determine the legal issues to be considered in unfair practice proceedings. (Barstow Unified
School District (1996) PERB Decision No. 1138, p. 10; State Employees Trades Council United
(Ventura, et al.) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2069-H, pp. 6-7; ABC Unified School District
(1991) PERB Decision No. 831b, p. 4.) Where the charge allegations state a prima facie case
of an unfair practice or other violation of a PERB-administered statute, the investigating Board
agent may supply the correct legal authority or applicable theory of liability. (Los Baños
Unified School District (2007) PERB Decision No. 1935, adopting warning letter at p. 2;
SMUD, supra, PERB Decision No. 1838-M, p. 1, fn. 2; Los Angeles Community College
District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1060, p. 9; see also State of California (Department of
Corrections & Rehabilitation) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2282-S, p. 15 [“Where the same
employer conduct concurrently violates more than one unfair practice provision, it is the duty of
the Board to find more than one violation.”].) PERB Regulation 32620 requires an investigating
5

________________________
Board agent to “advise the charging party in writing of any deficiencies in the charge in a
warning letter, unless otherwise agreed by the Board agent and the charging party, prior to
dismissal of any allegations contained in the charge.” (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); City of
Roseville (2016) PERB Decision No. 2505-M, pp. 13-14.)
On review of a dismissal without hearing, we treat the charging party’s factual
allegations as true and consider them in the light most favorable to the charging party.
(San Juan Unified School District (1977) EERB3 Decision No. 12, p. 4; Golden Plains Unified
School District (2002) PERB Decision No. 1489, p. 6; California School Employees
Association & its Chapter 244 (Gutierrez) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1606, pp. 3-4.) We may
also consider information provided by the respondent, when such information is submitted
under oath, complements without contradicting the facts alleged in the charge, and is not
disputed by the charging party. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (c); Service Employees International
Union #790 (Adza) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1632-M, adopting dismissal letter at p. 1;
Lake Tahoe Unified School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 994, pp. 12-13; Riverside
Unified School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 562a, p. 8.) If the Board determines that
the investigation of a charge has not adequately addressed all allegations in the charge, the
matter must be remanded for further investigation (County of Alameda (2006) PERB Decision
No. 1824-M (Alameda), pp. 2-5) or, if the charge states a prima facie case, the dismissal must
be reversed and remanded for issuance of a complaint. (Trustees of CSU, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2384-H, p. 22, citing California State University, Hayward (1987) PERB
Decision No. 607-H.)
3 Before January 1, 1978, PERB was known as the Educational Employment Relations
Board or EERB.
6

The present charge alleges violations of HEERA section 3571, subdivisions (a) and (d),
i.e., unlawful discrimination or retaliation against a higher education employee and domination
or interference with the formation or administration of an employee organization. We consider
first the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation of the discrimination allegation and
CSUEU’s contentions on appeal before turning to the domination/interference allegation.
B. 	Allegation that Chavin was Terminated in Retaliation for Protected Conduct
To demonstrate employer discrimination or retaliation against an employee in violation
of HEERA section 3571, subdivision (a), the charging party must allege facts showing that:
(1) the employee exercised rights under HEERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the
exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the
employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. (Novato Unified School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato), pp. 5-6; Regents of the University of
California (2012) PERB Decision No. 2302-H, adopting proposed decision at p 14.)
For the purpose of reviewing the dismissal of this allegation, the relevant factual
allegations are as follows: Beginning in February 2015, Chavin was employed as an Operations
Analyst in the Budget Office at California State University, San Marcos, which is a campus of
the University. Chavin’s position is part of Bargaining Unit 7, which is exclusively represented
by CSUEU. At all times relevant to this appeal, Chavin was a probationary employee.
Chavin worked in the same office as LaShann Wilkerson (Wilkerson), an employee in
accounts payable. Because Chavin’s and Wilkerson’s workspaces were separated only by a
partition, on April 3, 2015, Chavin overheard a verbal altercation between Wilkerson and
Wilkerson’s supervisor, Veronica Roman (Roman), in which Wilkerson repeatedly asked Roman
to put her hands down. After Roman left, Wilkerson informed Chavin of her plans to file a
7

________________________
complaint against Roman and asked Chavin to appear as a witness. Chavin agreed. Wilkerson
filed with the University a written complaint alleging improper governmental activity/coercion to
work unpaid hours, denial of the right to union representation in an investigative meeting and
retaliation.4 Wilkerson’s complaint identified Chavin as a witness to Wilkerson’s dispute with
Roman. Although Wilkerson’s complaint was presented through a non-collectively bargained
complaint procedure, the charge alleges that CSUEU represented Wilkerson in this complaint.5
On or about April 8, 2015, Melinda Swearingen (Swearingen), a manager of employee
relations, contacted and interviewed Chavin about the Wilkerson-Roman dispute. Swearingen
4 CSUEU’s appeal argues that the Office of the General Counsel improperly ignored its
separate allegation that Wilkerson, in her capacity as a CSUEU steward, was also involved in a
grievance regarding unpaid overtime compensation, which was brought under the collective
bargaining agreement. While this allegation was included in the charge and, unquestionably,
establishes Wilkerson’s participation in protected activity, we agree with Office of the General
Counsel that it fails to establish either Chavin’s involvement in the overtime grievance or the
University’s knowledge thereof. As explained below, Chavin engaged in protected activity by
providing mutual aid or protection as a witness in support of Wilkerson’s dispute with her
supervisor. The charge fails to allege specific facts demonstrating how Wilkerson’s status as a
steward, or her involvement in representing employees in the overtime grievance, has any
bearing on the analysis of whether Chavin engaged in protected conduct.
5 The second amended charge also alleges that Chavin was a witness in PERB Unfair
Practice Case No. LA-CE-1242-H, which CSUEU filed on April 16, 2015 on Wilkerson’s
behalf. One could infer that, if Chavin had just provided testimony in support of Wilkerson’s
University complaint one week earlier, she might also serve as a witness in an unfair practice
charge challenging Wilkerson’s dismissal. However, we agree with the Office of the General
Counsel that CSUEU’s charge does not allege specific facts demonstrating either that CSUEU
identified Chavin as a witness in advance of the hearing, or how the University otherwise was
made aware of Chavin’s willingness to serve as a witness in the separate unfair practice charge at
any time before Chavin’s termination. Pursuant to PERB decisional law, the Board and its
agents may take official notice of documents in PERB’s files and records, and we do so here to
correct a minor, nonprejudicial error. (Antelope Valley Community College District (1979)
PERB Decision No. 97, pp. 23-24; Santa Clara County Superior Court (2014) PERB Decision
No. 2394-C, p. 16.) Although the dismissal letter incorrectly identifies Wilkerson, rather than
CSUEU, as the charging party in Case No. LA-CE-1242-H, this error does not affect the Office
of the General Counsel’s determination that, because Case No. LA-CE-1242-H was withdrawn
before going to hearing, there was insufficient information to explain how the University would
have known that Chavin was prepared to testify as a witness in the separate charge.
8

asked Chavin questions about her knowledge of the event and also instructed her not to talk to
anyone about the investigation.
In the course of her duties for the University, Chavin later learned that Wilkerson had
been dismissed, and Chavin herself was then summoned to a meeting with her supervisor who
allegedly told Chavin that she was “not collaborative” and that she would need to meet with a
Human Resources (HR) official. HR Director Ellen Cardoso met with Chavin and informed her
of her probationary release on or about May 1, 2015. Chavin also learned from CSUEU
representatives that her testimony about the Wilkerson-Roman dispute had not been included in
the University’s response to Wilkerson’s complaint and, more specifically, that the University’s
response stated that no one had corroborated Wilkerson’s claim that Roman had put her hands in
Wilkerson’s face or that Wilkerson had asked Roman to put her hands down.
The Office of the General Counsel dismissed CSUEU’s retaliation allegation for failure
to state a prima facie case and, in particular, for failure to allege facts demonstrating Chavin’s
participation in protected activity. Citing Regents of the University of California (1991) PERB
Decision No. 872-H (Einheber), the Office of the General Counsel noted that PERB has
afforded protection to employee grievances and complaints in at least two situations: where they
constitute participation in the activities of an employee organization, and where the employee
represents himself or herself pursuant to a specific statutory right. (Id. adopting proposed
decision at p. 24; see also Berkeley Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2411
(Berkeley), p. 17, and Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495
(Walnut Valley), pp. 13-20.) The warning and dismissal letters correctly note that filing a
grievance or appearing as a witness in a collectively-bargained grievance procedure necessarily
involves participation in the activities of an employee organization and is therefore protected.
9

Additionally, as the Board explained in North Sacramento School District (1982) PERB
Decision No. 264 (North Sacramento), “it would be anomalous to guarantee employee
organizations the right to represent employees in the grievance process while failing to guarantee
employees the concomitant right to participate in the very same grievance process free from fear
of discrimination or reprisal.” (Id. at p. 7, underlining and fn. omitted.)
However, the Office of the General Counsel reasoned that Wilkerson’s complaint against
her supervisor was not protected because it was presented in an “internal” or non-collectively
bargained complaint procedure, and that Chavin’s participation as a witness in support of
Wilkerson’s complaint was likewise unprotected. The Office of the General Counsel also
reasoned that, because Wilkerson’s complaint against Roman was filed solely on Wilkerson’s
own behalf, that Chavin’s willingness to serve as a witness in support of that complaint was not
group activity and was therefore unprotected. We disagree on both points.
In language that is virtually identical to that found in the other PERB-administered
statutes, HEERA expressly guarantees higher education employees “the right to form, join and
participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of
representation on all matters of employer-employee relations and for the purpose of meeting
and conferring.” 	(HEERA, § 3565, emphasis added.) Unlike most of the other PERB-
administered statutes, HEERA provides no independent right of employee organizations to
represent employees. (Regents of the University of California v. Public Employment Relations
Board (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 937, 944.) However, it does guarantee the employee
organization selected by a majority of employees in an appropriate unit as the exclusive
representative the right to meet and confer on behalf of unit employees “on all matters within
the scope of representation,” including employee grievances. (HEERA, § 3570; Trustees of
10

________________________
CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. 2384-H, p. 23, fn. 19.) Even where employees choose to
represent themselves in grievances, the higher education employer cannot “adjust[]” or fully
resolve the matter without providing the exclusive representative with notice and opportunity
for comment. (HEERA, § 3567; Trustees of The California State University (East Bay) (2015)
PERB Decision No. 2408-H, adopting proposed decision at pp. 41-42; see also Van Can Co. &
United Steelworkers of Am., Local No. 5632, AFL-CIO-CLC (1991) 304 NLRB 1085, fn. 5.)
While an individual employee’s complaint that is “entirely personal in nature and not an
extension of concerted action” is unprotected (Regents of the University of California (2010)
PERB Decision No. 2153-H, adopting warning letter at p. 9), employee activity directed against
a supervisor’s 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. (Barstow Unified School District (1996) PERB Decision No. 1164 (Barstow),
proposed decision at pp. 22-23; State of California (Department of Transportation) (1982) PERB
Decision No. 257-S, pp. 6-7.) Wilkerson’s complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor
falls squarely within the ambit of “employer-employee relation[s]” because it affects workplace
safety and freedom from a hostile work environment. (State of California (Department of
Veterans Affairs) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1686-S, pp. 2-3.)6 By alleging that CSUEU
represented Wilkerson in her complaint of abusive treatment by her supervisor, the charge
includes sufficient facts to demonstrate that Wilkerson, and by extension Chavin, “participate[d]
6 Because CSUEU’s representation of Wilkerson’s complaint establishes its protected
status as an employee organizational activity, we find it unnecessary to consider whether
Wilkerson’s complaint was also a protected health and safety complaint, for the purpose of
establishing a prima facie case. (Los Angeles Unified School District (1995) PERB Decision
No. 1129, pp. 3-5, 8.)
11

________________________
in the activities of [an] employee organization[] of their own choosing for the purpose of
representation” on a matter of employer-employee relations.
The fact that Wilkerson’s complaint was presented in an “internal,” rather than
collectively-bargained, grievance procedure does not, in our view, make her complaint
unprotected. Our precedents hold that securing union representation about a matter of
employment relations, including representation in a grievance arising under the employer’s
staff personnel policies, falls within the protection afforded by section 3565. (Regents of the
University of California (1984) PERB Decision No. 449-H (Regents of UC), adopting
proposed decision at pp. 71, 135, 154; see also City of Monterey (2005) PERB Decision
No. 1766-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 8 [protected right to representation in non-
collectively-bargained termination hearing].) The reasoning of North Sacramento is no less
applicable when an employee organization represents an employee in an employer’s “internal” or
other non-collectively bargained grievance or complaint procedure. In Mount Diablo Unified
School District, et al. (1977) EERB Decision No. 44, the Board determined that the statutory
right of the exclusive representative to represent unit employees “in their employment relations”
applies to both contractual and non-contractual grievance procedures. (Id. at p. 10.)7 In reaching
this conclusion, the Board observed that the term “employment relations” was broad enough to
7 Mt. Diablo held that section 3543.1, subdivision (a), of EERA “confers on an
employee organization the right to represent its members in a grievance proceeding even if that
employee organization is not the exclusive representative, but only so long as there is no
exclusive representative of the grieving employees.” (Id. at p. 9; the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA) is codified at section 3540 et seq.) Thus, under Mt. Diablo and similar
cases, representation by an employee organization in an internal or non-collectively bargained
grievance procedure constitutes protected participation in the activities of an employee
organization, so long as the unit where the dispute arose is not exclusively represented by
another employer organization. (Ibid.; see also Chaffey Joint Union High School District
(1982) PERB Decision No. 202, pp. 6-7, and Hartnell Community College District (2015)
PERB Decision No. 2452, p. 35, fn. 14, 37-38.)
12

encompass employee grievances, regardless of whether they arose in collectively-bargained or
non-negotiated grievance procedures. It also reasoned that the policy considerations underlying
EERA section 3543.1, subdivision (a), including the rights of employees to select a
representative and to be represented, are no less applicable when the bargaining agent carries out
its function in a non-contractual grievance procedure. (Ibid.; see also Circuit-Wise, Inc. (1992)
306 NLRB 766, 766–767.)
In several subsequent cases, PERB has affirmed that the term “employment relations”
includes an employer’s administrative remedies, and that the statutory rights of an exclusive
representative to represent employees extends to an employer’s non-collectively bargained
complaint resolution procedures. (Rio Hondo Community College District (1982) PERB
Decision No. 272, pp. 2-3, 6-11; Eastern Sierra Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision
No. 312, pp. 5-6; City of Monterey, supra, PERB Decision No. 1766-M, proposed decision at
p. 8.) These and other cases have likewise affirmed the reasoning of North Sacramento, that,
where the exclusive representative has a right to represent employees in their employment
relations, employees have a corresponding right to be represented by their designated
representative. (Rio Hondo, supra, at p. 9; City of Monterey; see also Trustees of CSU, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2384-H, pp. 36-37.) Even under HEERA, where employee organizations
have no independent right to represent employees, PERB has held that higher education
employees nonetheless have a protected right to representation by their designated employee
organization. (Regents of UC, supra, PERB Decision No. 449-H, adopting proposed decision at
pp. 71, 135, 154; Regents of the University of California v. PERB, supra, 168 Cal.App.3d 937,
945.)
13

Regents (Einheber) is distinguishable from the allegations in the present charge. In
Regents (Einheber), the charging party was not part of an exclusively represented unit, and he
presented his complaint through a non-collectively bargained grievance procedure without
representation by any employee organization. (Regents (Einheber), supra, PERB Decision
No. 872, p. 24.) The proposed decision in Regents (Einheber) explains the significance of this
distinction, by specifically noting that, “HEERA protects employees who seek union
representation in the University’s grievance procedure,” but that HEERA provides no separate
right of employees to represent themselves individually in workplace disputes with a higher
education employer. (Id. at pp. 27-29, emphasis added.)
Unlike the facts in Regents (Einheber), CSUEU’s second amended charge alleges that
Wilkerson was exclusively represented by CSUEU and that CSUEU represented Wilkerson in
her complaint against her supervisor. As discussed above, the fact that Wilkerson’s complaint
was not presented in a collectively -bargained grievance procedure is not determinative, because,
by virtue of CSUEU’s involvement, Wilkerson participated in the activities of an employee
organization, which is expressly protected by HEERA section 3565. Chavin’s appearance as a
witness on Wilkerson’s behalf in that same process was likewise protected participation in an
employee organization’s activity, regardless of the nature of the proceedings in which CSUEU
presented Wilkerson’s complaint.
We likewise reject the Office of the General Counsel’s determination that, because
Wilkerson’s complaint against Roman was made solely by and on behalf of Wilkerson herself,
Chavin was not engaged in protected group activity. Here, we think Regents (Einheber) actually
provides persuasive support for concluding that Chavin’s participation as a witness on
Wilkerson’s behalf was protected, even without the involvement of CSUEU, and even assuming
14

________________________
the Office of the General Counsel appropriately characterized Wilkerson’s complaint as “solely
by and on behalf” of Wilkerson herself. We explain.
PERB and California courts have long recognized that, in drafting the California public-
sector labor relations statutes, the Legislature drew much of its inspiration from section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).8 (Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Decision No. 291
(Modesto), pp. 60-61; Redwoods Community College Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
(1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 617, 622; McPherson v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1987) 189
Cal.App.3d 293, 311 (McPherson); see also Capistrano Unified School District (2015) PERB
Decision No. 2440, p. 35.) Under section 7 of the NLRA, employees in the private sector “have
the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” as well as the right to refrain
from any or all of such activities. (29 U.S.C., § 157.) In Modesto, the Board explained that,
“[t]he only difference” between the right of California’s public-sector employees to participate in
employee organizational activities and the right of private-sector employees to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection is
that the California statutes “use[] plainer and more universally understood language to clearly
and directly authorize employee participation in collective actions traditionally related to the
bargaining process.” (Id. at p. 62.)
In various contexts, Board decisions have affirmed that the Modesto Board’s
interpretation as consistent with the policies and purposes of the California labor relations
statutes. (Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2015) PERB
8 The NLRA is codified at 29 U.S.C. section 151 et seq.
15

Decision No. 2418-M, pp. 32-34, overruling Compton Unified School District (1987) PERB
Order No. IR-50; Los Angeles Community College District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2404,
pp. 6-8; Walnut Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 2495, p. 9; see also County of Trinity
(United Public Employees of California, Local 792) (2016) PERB Decision No. 2480-M,
adopting warning letter at p. 3.) PERB has also held that an individual employee’s criticism of
management or working conditions is protected when its purpose is to advance other
employees’ interests or when it is a logical extension of group activity. (Regents (Einheber),
supra, PERB Decision No. 949, pp. 6-7; Barstow, supra, PERB Decision No. 1164, adopting
proposed decision at pp. 22-23; Berkeley, supra, PERB Decision No. 2411, pp. 19-20.)
The underlying rationale for these Board decisions and for similar private-sector
authorities is that, if individual employees are not free to act together informally and
spontaneously to provide mutual aid or protection to one another, then it is unlikely that they
may ever exercise their right to form or join, much less to participate in the activities of, an
employee organization. Thus, under both California and federal law, an individual employee’s
attempt to enlist the support of fellow employees for mutual aid or protection concerning
employer-employee relations is as much protected activity as is his or her participation in
employee organizational activities, since the one seldom exists without the other. (Owens-
Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. NLRB (4th Cir. 1969) 407 F.2d 1357, 1365; Franklin Iron & Metal
Corp. (1994) 315 NLRB 819, 820.)
By logical extension, it would make little sense to treat an individual employee’s request
for assistance to other employees or an individual’s appeal to group activity as protected, but
then to hold that another employee’s response to that request or appeal is not protected. Even if
the original request or appeal was solely by and on behalf of the complaining employee, the
16

appeal for assistance and the fellow employee’s response make the activity both concerted and
for the purpose of providing mutual aid or protection to a coworker in the purest sense of those
words. Absent some explanation of how the statutory language or the peculiar circumstances of
public-sector employment justify a different result, we can discern no reason for departing from
the array of sound private-sector precedents holding that individual employee-to-employee
activity aimed at providing mutual aid or protection is statutorily protected, notwithstanding its
informal and spontaneous nature. (McPherson, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d 293, 311; Modesto,
supra, PERB Decision No. 291, p. 62.) By alleging that Wilkerson approached Chavin to serve
as a witness in support of Wilkerson’s complaint against a supervisor’s allegedly abusive
conduct, and by alleging that Chavin responded to Wilkerson’s request for assistance, CSUEU
has alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that Wilkerson and Chavin engaged in statutorily-
protected concerted activity.
Because the Office of the General Counsel determined that CSUEU had not alleged
sufficient facts to demonstrate protected activity, it did not analyze the other elements of PERB’s
Novato, supra, PERB Decision No. 210, test for unlawful discrimination or retaliation, including
whether the charge contains sufficient facts to demonstrate that Chavin’s probationary release
was undertaken because of her participation in protected conduct. We therefore reverse the
dismissal of this allegation and remand to the Office of the General Counsel for further
investigation of this allegation.
C. 	Domination or Interference with Administration of an Employee Organization
HEERA makes it unlawful for a higher education employer to “[d]ominate or interfere
with the formation or administration of any employee organization, or contribute financial or
other support to it, or in any way encourage employees to join any organization in preference to
17

another.” (HEERA, § 3571, subd. (d); Ventura Community College District (1994) PERB
Decision No. 1073, p. 8; Clovis Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 389, pp. 8-9;
see also Oak Grove School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 582, p. 18.) Proof that the
employer intended to unlawfully dominate or assist an employee organization or to influence
employee choice is not required. (Azusa Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 38,
pp. 6-10.) Nor is it necessary to prove that employees actually changed their organizational
affiliation as a result of the employer’s conduct. (Santa Monica Community College District
(1979) PERB Decision No. 103, p. 22; Redwoods Community College District (1987) PERB
Decision No. 650, pp. 2-4.)
Although an allegation that an employer has dominated or interfered with the internal
affairs of an employee organization may overlap with an allegation of other employer unfair
practices, such as by-passing the representative and dealing directly with employees (see, e.g.,
Omnitrans (2010) PERB Decision No. 2143-M, pp. 5-6), a prima facie case of employer
domination or assistance does not necessarily involve employer interference with union
activities or discrimination based on protected conduct. (See, e.g., State of California
(Department of Corrections) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1308-S, adopting warning letter at
p. 4.) Allegations of employer interference with or discrimination because of protected rights
are properly analyzed as separate unfair practices proscribed by other provisions of the statute.
(HEERA, § 3571, subds. (a), (b), (c); Trustees of CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. 2384-H,
p. 23, fn. 19.) Although CSUEU’s original charge and each of the amendments filed with
PERB alleged that the University had violated HEERA section 3571, subdivision (d), it does
not appear that the charge includes sufficient allegations to state a prima facie violation of this
18

provision of HEERA. Nevertheless, we are unable to dismiss the allegation in the current
posture of the case.
PERB Regulation 32620 requires an investigating Board agent to “advise the charging
party in writing of any deficiencies in the charge in a warning letter, unless otherwise agreed
by the Board agent and the charging party, prior to dismissal of any allegations contained in
the charge.” (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d).) The purpose of the regulation is to provide the
charging party with notice and an opportunity to correct any deficiencies before any allegation
in the charge is dismissed. (Hartnell, supra, PERB Decision No. 2452, p. 31; County of
San Joaquin (2003) PERB Decision No. 1570-M, p. 8; County of Alameda (2006) PERB
Decision No. 1824-M, pp. 4-5.)
There is no indication in the file that any theory of a subdivision (d) violation was ever
investigated, as the warning and dismissal letters do not reference the allegation, nor discuss
the elements for stating a prima facie case. Because our Regulations prohibit dismissal of any
allegation without prior notice to the charging party, we vacate the dismissal of this allegation
and remand the matter to the Office of the General Counsel for further investigation in
accordance with PERB Regulations. (PERB Reg. 32620, subd. (d); Hartnell, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2452, p. 31; County of Alameda, supra, PERB Decision No. 1824-M, p. 5.)
D. 	Interference with Protected Rights
Under PERB’s Carlsbad standard, a prima facie interference violation is established if
the employer’s conduct, including its promulgation or maintenance of a rule, reasonably tends
to or does in fact result in harm to employee rights. (Carlsbad Unified School District (1979)
PERB Decision No. 89 (Carlsbad), pp. 10-11; County of Riverside (2010) PERB Decision
No. 2119-M, pp. 16-23; Jurupa Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2283
19

(Jurupa), p. 29.) 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 potentially chill protected activity. (Santee
Elementary School District (2006) PERB Decision No. 1822, p. 11; Los Angeles County
Federation of Labor v. County of Los Angeles (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 905, 908-909.)
Generally, an employer rule or directive that bans a general category of conduct, which
includes both protected and unprotected activity, is presumptively unlawful because its very
ambiguity is likely to chill protected conduct. (Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint
Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, pp. 46-47; Los Angeles
Community College District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2404 (LACCD), p. 6-7; County of
Sacramento (2014) PERB Decision No. 2393-M, p. 20.)
In LACCD, supra, PERB Decision No. 2404, we explained that, “[i]n the area of
employer rules and directives, PERB does not look favorably on broad, vague directives that
might chill lawful speech or other protected conduct.” (Id. at p. 6, citing State of California
(Employment Development Department) (2001) PERB Decision No. 1365a-S, p. 10.) We held
that an employer directive that could reasonably be construed to prohibit protected activity,
including contacting union representatives or members for the purpose of initiating a grievance
or enlisting the support of other employees, constitutes a prima facie case of interference with
protected rights. (LACCD, supra, at pp. 6-7.)
Similarly, in the private sector, when an employer instructs an employee not to speak
with others about wages, hours or working conditions, including grievances and past or
prospective disciplinary actions, it is a prima facie case of interference with employees’ rights
to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. (Rogers Environmental
20

Contracting, Inc. (1997) 325 NLRB 144 [wages]; Kinder-Care Learning Centers (1990)
299 NLRB 1171, 1172 [working conditions]; Medeco Sec. Locks, Inc. v. NLRB (4th Cir. 1998)
142 F.3d 733, 748 [working conditions and involuntary transfer]; Tracer Protection Services,
Inc. (1999) 328 NLRB 734 [discipline or discharge].) The rationale for these decisions is that,
if employees are not free to discuss their wages, hours and working conditions, then they can
never get to the more difficult concerted activities of forming, joining or participating in the
activities of employee organizations (or refraining from doing so). (See Beth Israel Hosp. v.
NLRB (1978) 437 U.S. 483, 491 [“[T]he right of employees to self-organize and bargain
collectively established by § 7 ..., necessarily encompasses the right effectively to
communicate with one another regarding self-organization at the jobsite.]; Central Hardware
Co. v. NLRB (1972) 407 U.S. 539, 543 [“[O]rganization rights are not viable in a vacuum; their
effectiveness depends in some measure on the ability of employees to learn the advantages and
disadvantages of organization from others.”].)
To the extent that an employer’s directive or policy of maintaining “confidentiality” of
investigations into employee grievances “muzzles” employees who seek to engage in concerted
activity for mutual aid or protection by denying them the very information needed to discuss
their wages, hours or working conditions, it necessarily harms employee rights. (Int’l Bus.
Machines Corp. (1982) 265 NLRB 638.) To overcome a presumption of invalidity stemming
from a vague or overinclusive rule, the employer must make it clear to employees that the thrust
of an inexplicitly-worded confidentiality rule is not to prohibit discussion of their terms and
conditions of employment. (Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2006) 347 NLRB 500;
Vanguard Tours (1990) 300 NLRB 250, 264.) Once it is established that the employer’s
prohibition on discussing wages, hours or working conditions adversely affects employees’
21

protected rights, the burden falls on the employer to demonstrate “legitimate and substantial
business justifications” for its conduct. (Jeannette Corp. v. NLRB (3d Cir. 1976) 532 F.2d 916,
918; In Desert Palace, Inc. (2001) 336 NLRB 271.)
Although not identified by CSUEU as an independent unfair practice, the second
amended charge alleges that, on or about April 8, 2015, and as part of the University’s
investigation into Wilkerson’s complaint against Roman, “Swearingen told Chavin she should
not talk to anyone about the investigation and that she would probably not hear any results.”
On its face, this directive not to talk to “anyone” could reasonably be construed to prohibit
protected activity, including contacting union representatives or members, or enlisting the
support of other employees. However, the warning and dismissal letters do not identify or
discuss this allegation. Because the allegation was apparently not investigated as an
independent theory of liability, we do not presume to say, at this point in the proceedings,
whether this allegation states a viable theory of liability of interference with protected rights or
whether there are additional factual allegations that would overcome a presumption of
invalidity, for example, by indicating that the University also made clear to employees that
Swearingen’s directive would not prohibit discussion of their terms and conditions of
employment. Instead, we remand the matter for investigation in accordance with this Decision.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the dismissal of the unfair practice charge, as amended, in
Case No. LA-CE-1244-H is VACATED and the matter REMANDED to the Office of the
General Counsel for further investigation in accordance with this Decision.
Chair Gregersen and Member Winslow joined in this Decision.
22