Superior Court of Fresno Cnty. v. Pub. Emp't Relations Bd., 30 Cal. App. 5th 158

Background

Fresno County Superior Court adopted Personnel Rules (Dec. 1, 2009) restricting employee dress/adorning images, solicitation during working hours, distribution of literature in working areas, and displays of noncourt writings/images visible to the public.
Service Employees International Union Local 521 filed unfair-practice charges; PERB found several provisions violated the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act and ordered rescission/remedies.
Key contested rules: Rule 1.11 (broad ban on clothing/adornments with writings/images) and Rule 17.3 (17.3.1: solicitation, distribution, display; 17.3.2: defines working time).
Administrative record: Court relied on the Judicial Council’s Code of Ethics and evidence of frequent employee-public contact in open/multiuse courthouse spaces; little evidence of prior complaints about union regalia or displays.
PERB held the bans on union regalia and public displays overbroad and ambiguous as to solicitation/distribution; the court of appeal reviewed legal issues de novo and factual findings under substantial-evidence where applicable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Court)	Defendant's Argument (PERB/Union)	Held
1) Do trial court impartiality interests justify a broad ban on employee clothing/adornments with writings/images (including union regalia)?	Court: Yes; appearance of impartiality and frequent public contact are "special circumstances" permitting broad restrictions.	PERB/Union: No; total ban on union regalia is overbroad—employer must narrowly tailor restrictions and prove special circumstances.	Held: Court may impose broad ban here — trial court interest in appearing impartial constitutes special circumstances; PERB's contrary finding set aside.
2) Is "solicit[ing] during working hours" ambiguous (does it cover duty-free breaks)?	Court: "working hours" is contextually synonymous with "working time" (excludes breaks); rule lawful.	PERB: Term ambiguous and could prohibit solicitation during duty-free periods.	Held: "Working hours" construed as "working time"; not ambiguous; PERB erred.
3) Is the provision prohibiting distribution of literature "at any time...in working areas" ambiguous and unlawful?	Court: Reads rule to bar distribution only in "working areas" and allow in nonworking areas; argued PERB lacked authority to reach this unalleged theory.	PERB/Union: "Working areas" is undefined; mixed-use areas make the phrase ambiguous and chilling of rights likely.	Held: The phrase "working areas" is ambiguous in context; PERB permissibly reached the issue under its unalleged-violation doctrine and rightly invalidated that portion.
4) Does PERB’s remedy (order to rescind ambiguous/overbroad portions) violate separation of powers?	Court: PERB remedy intrudes on judicial branch prerogatives.	PERB: Statutory authority to adjudicate unfair practices and fashion appropriate remedies under Trial Court Act.	Held: Invalidation of the ambiguous distribution provision does not materially impair court’s constitutional functions; separation-of-powers claim rejected as applied.

Key Cases Cited

Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1954) (appearance of justice requirement)
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1989) (legitimacy of judicial impartiality central to judicial branch)
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1965) (state may protect courts from pressure near courthouses; appearance-based interests)
Beth Israel Hospital v. N.L.R.B., 437 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1978) (industry/context matters in special-circumstances analysis)
Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793 (U.S. 1945) (employer may prohibit solicitation during working time but not during nonduty periods)
In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 894 F.3d 707 (5th Cir. 2018) (special-circumstances balancing; narrow tailoring; blanket bans rarely lawful)
Pay ‘n Save Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 641 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1981) (burden on employer to show special circumstances)