As we reported here, California’s Senate Bill (S.B.) 399, took effect on January 1, 2025. This law prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend meetings about the company’s opinions on political or religious matters, including discussions about unionization. California joins almost a dozen other states, including Illinois, New York, and Oregon, in enacting union-backed statutes that prohibit so-called “captive audience” meetings.
The Teamsters
Under the unfair competition law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., a plaintiff may bring a cause of action for any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Generally, a UCL claim will be brought as a violation of rules set out in other laws or may be brought for any practice that is “unfair” even if not statutorily
On Tuesday, seven elected officials from various local government bodies challenged a recently enacted California state law that prohibits a public employer from “deter[ing] or discourag[ing] public employees from becoming or remaining members” of a union. The challenged statute (which was part of Senate Bill 866) was a rearguard action that the public employee unions (and their many friends and admirers in the California
Five In-Home Supportive Service (“IHSS”) providers filed a class-action lawsuit last month challenging their union’s practice of deducting union dues despite their quitting the union. The workers allege their First Amendment rights are being violated by the union deducting dues from their paychecks and using it to subsidize union speech. Just one year ago, the United States Supreme Court held that it is a
In a highly anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court today held that it is a violation of the First Amendment to require public sector employees who are not members of a union to pay any union dues, even when a portion of those dues is attributable to the costs of collective bargaining on behalf of all employees. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 585
Earlier this month, San Francisco’s Public Safety & Neighborhood Services Committee unanimously approved an ordinance that requires certain cannabis business permit applicants to agree to enter into a collective bargaining agreement (a “Labor Peace Agreement”) with a “Bona Fide Labor Organization” as a condition of receiving a cannabis business permit.
The measure applies to business applicants with 10 or more employees and amends San Francisco’s
Mora v. Webcor Constr., L.P., 20 Cal. App. 5th 211 (2018)
Steven Mora filed this putative class action/PAGA claim against his former employer, Webcor Construction, for violation of the California wage statement statute (Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)) based upon payments made to a union vacation trust fund authorized by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (“LMRA”). The trial court sustained the
Fowler Packing Co. v. Lanier, 2016 WL 7321371 (9th Cir. 2016)
In 2015, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 1513 in response to two state appellate court decisions that exposed employers to significant and unexpected minimum wage liability for piece-rate workers. The statute created a “safe harbor” that gave employers an affirmative defense against the new claims so long as the employer made back
Dang v. Maruichi Am. Corp., 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
Khanh Dang sued his former employer for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, claiming that Maruichi had discharged him for engaging in concerted activity relating to unionizing efforts. The trial court granted Maruichi’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction because Dang’s claim was preempted
Paratransit, Inc. v. CUIAB, 2014 WL 2988013 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014)
Craig Medeiros worked as a vehicle operator for Paratransit for six years. Medeiros was a member of a union, and the union and the employer were parties to a collective bargaining agreement. Paratransit investigated a complaint filed by a passenger, alleging that Medeiros had unlawfully harassed her. Following the investigation, Paratransit concluded the