The Right to Display Non-Permanent Union Insignia on Work Vehicles

California public employees have long enjoyed the right to display union insignia and messages regarding working conditions in the workplace. Absent special circumstances, restrictions on the display of union insignia and messages unlawfully interfere with employees’ broad right to participate in the activities of an employee organization of their choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations.

It is well-settled that the right to display union insignia and messages encompasses union buttons and pins as well as apparel and uniforms bearing a union logo. In a recent decision, the California Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) held that this right also encompasses the display of removable union magnets on work vehicles. (Regents of the University of California (2023) PERB Decision No. 2880-H (“Regents”).)

The employer in Regents maintained a vehicle use policy prohibiting employees from placing decals, stickers, or other signs, including license plate frames advertising car dealerships, on employer-issued vehicles. Based thereon, a union member employee was directed to remove a union magnet from his assigned work vehicle. As the magnet could be attached and removed from any particular vehicle without leaving behind a residue or otherwise causing damage, PERB likened the union magnet to a button pinned to employee clothing or insignia added to a uniform. Therefore, PERB found that the employer’s vehicle use policy tended to interfere with the exercise of protected rights.

PERB also found that the employer was unable to establish the existence of special circumstances justifying its restriction on the display of union insignia on employer-owned vehicles. A number of factors are considered in determining whether special circumstances exist, including whether the insignia or message is likely to jeopardize employee safety, damage property or negatively affect the employer. In Regents, the employer argued that the risk of the union insignia or message being misattributed to the employer justified the restriction. However, it presented no evidence that any such confusion had already occurred or was likely to occur. Since special circumstances must be demonstrated by concrete, fact-based evidence, PERB rejected the employer’s argument as insufficiently speculative.

In light of the employer’s failure to demonstrate special circumstances, PERB held that the employer unlawfully interfered with protected employee rights when it prohibited employees from placing magnets bearing union insignia on employer-issued vehicles. The employer was ordered to rescind the subject directive to the union member employee and to revise its vehicle use policy to permit the display of non-permanent union messages and insignia.

Paige Chretien, Attorney

Hayes, Ortega & Sanchez, LLP