The bargaining agent for county employees proposed altering the memorandum of understanding it had with the county's bargaining units to allow it to get a list of the home addresses and phone numbers of all employees represented, including those who had not joined the union. A county employee relations commission found that the county's refusal to provide such a list was an unfair labor practice. The California Supreme Court held that, despite any privacy interest employees might have in the information, it was outweighed by the interests favoring disclosure of this information to the union representing them. It stated, however, that there could be procedures fashioned to allow employees who object to opt out, but an intermediate appeals court, in attempting to impose a specific procedure for this on the parties exceeded its authority.County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm'n, #S191944, 2013 Cal. Lexis 4692.
     State labor board overturns management's decision to remove exercise equipment from fire stations. Firefighters had used the equipment for ten years, without a recorded injury, and the equipment was not purchased with city funds. City of Newton and F/F Assn, L-8632, #MUP-08-5369 (Mass. Lab. Rltns. 2010).
     A divided California appellate panel holds that a county did not violate labor laws by sending an informational e-mail in opposition to a voter initiative relating to binding arbitration of labor disputes involving deputy sheriffs and correctional officers. "Any expenditure in preparing and distributing the email with its attachment was minimal." DiQuisto v. County of Santa Clara, #H032345, 2010 Cal. App. Lexis 59 (6th Dist.).
     Federal appeals court rules that a security guard firm could enforce an anti-fraternization rule regarding workplace romances, but it could not prevent employees from discussing working conditions with each other or with representatives of the client organization where they are assigned. A chain-of-command rule or a no-fraternization rule cannot interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees" in the exercise of their right to collective action. Guardsmark v. NLRB, #05-1216, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2263 (D.C. Cir.). [N/R]
     National Labor Relations Board affirms an ALJ's finding that the employer violated 8(a)(1) of the Act by initiating a drive to decertify a union and then coercing its employees to support the decertification drive. Corrections Corp. of Amer. and Int. Union, Security, Police, and Fire Prof. of Amer., #21-CA-36223, 2006 NLRB Lexis 297, 347 NLRB No. 62 (2006). {N/R}
     Michigan Employment Relations Cmsn. finds that management committed an unfair labor practice by suspending, with pay, a police officer who hosted a website that was critical to management. The website need not have a direct nexus to wages, hours, or working conditions. Detroit Police Dept., and Detroit P.O.A.,C04 A-001, 19 MPER 15, 2006 MPER (LRP) Lexis 14 (2006). [2006 FP Sep]
     Federal appeals court allows monetary sanctions against an employer that filed frivolous lawsuits against the unions. BE&K Const. Co. v. N.L.R.B., #99-6469, 246 F.3d 619, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 6013, 2001 FED App. 0105P, 166 LRRM (BNA) 2971, 69 L.W. 1656 (6th Cir.). [2001 FP 93]
     A county committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally implementing a total no-smoking policy in the county jail; the county failed to demonstrate that a smoking ban was essential to the facility's basic mission. Crawford Co. v. Penn. Lab. Rel. Bd., 659 A.2d 1078; 1995 Pa. Commw. Lexis 256; Rev. den., 543 Pa. 482 (Pa. 1996). [1998 FP 28]
     NY Administrative Law Judge concludes that management improperly imposed a disciplinary transfer on a senior command officer because he testified at a disciplinary hearing on behalf of a sergeant. This was litigated as an unfair labor practice charge and not as a free speech constitutional issue. Suffolk Co. Super. Ofcrs. Assn. and Co. of Suffolk, #U-16513, 1996 NYPER (LRP) Lexis 1134 (NY PERB). {N/R}
     Mich. Empl. Rel. Cmsn. holds that the implementation of mandatory psychological counseling without first resorting to the bargaining process is an unfair labor practice. Co. of Allegany Sheriff Dept., 1992 MERC Lab Op 134. {N/R}
     Civil Service Commission terminated an officer for cause. In a parallel proceeding, the state Labor Relations Commission found an unfair labor practice and ordered reinstatement. The appellate court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support both judgments, but the Labor Commission's decision must prevail. Rozek v. Bristol Bor., 613 A.2d 165 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992). [1993 FP 68]
     Failure to bargain in good faith may be an unfair labor practice, but does not prevent statutory resolution of a bargaining impasse by mandatory arbitration. City of Manistee v. Emplmt. Rltns. Cmsn., 425 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. App. 1988).
     Town did not like bargaining with FOP, so it abolished the police dept. and contracted with the sheriff for patrol services. Federal and state courts rule this was an unfair labor practice and a violation of the federal civil rights act. Healy v. Pembroke Park, 643 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Fla. 1986).
     Change of uniform regulations during period of contract negotiation was a bad-faith, unfair labor practice. Burlington Fire Fighters Assn. v. City of Burlington, 457 A.2d 642 (Vt. 1983).
     State labor board upholds unfair labor practice against two other unions that honored striking firefighters" picket lines. City of Manchester and AFSCME Local 298, NHPERLB Case #M00521 Decision 780045.
     Existence of grievance arbitration mechanism should not delay hearing of unfair labor practice charge; deferral improper. Detroit Fire Fighters Assn. IAFF L-344 v. City of Detroit, 293 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. 1980).