In the interpretation and application of this chapter, the public policy of this State is declared as follows:
Negotiation of terms and conditions of labor should result from voluntary agreement between employer and employees. Governmental authority has permitted and encouraged employers to organize in the corporate and other forms of capital control. In dealing with such employers, the individual unorganized worker is helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect his freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment. Therefore it is necessary that the individual workman have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
Notes of Decisions
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 765 P.2d 373 (Cal. 1988).
· cites it 2× “" (Lab. Code, § 923.) [7] All contracts, including contracts for employment at will, include a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but the arbitrary discharge of an employee at will is not a breach of contract.”
San Diego Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court, 593 P.2d 838 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 4× “" Labor Code section 923's declaration that workers are to be free from employer interference in "concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection" is generally understood to confer a right to strike.”
Gilberto Santillan v. USA Waste of California, 853 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “For decades, California courts have recognized a wrongful termination claim based on the public policy reflected in California Labor Code Section 923 13 where an employer retaliates against an employee who has “designated an attorney to represent [him] for the purpose of…”
Sarmiento v. Sealy, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Further, Plaintiffs allege two individual claims for wrongful termination: (7) unlawful retaliation based on California Labor Code section 923 ; and (8) common-law wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Comm'n, 981 P.2d 499 (Cal. 1999).
· cites it 2× “6 *377 Whether the PSA violates Labor Code section 923, 1779, or 1780 Labor Code section 923 declares that the public policy of California favors the rights of individual workers to freedom of association, self-organization, the designation of representatives of their choice,…”
Los Angeles Metro. Transit Auth. v. Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen, 355 P.2d 905 (Cal. 1960).
· cites it 4× “It predicates the purpose of the Act [as, I interpolate, so does *700 California Labor Code, section 923] on the contrast between the position of the `individual unorganized worker' and that of the `owners of property' who have been permitted to `organize in the corporate and…”
Burnette v. Godshall, 828 F. Supp. 1439 (N.D. Cal. 1993).
· cites it 2× “California Labor Code section 923 declares it is the public policy of the state to protect workers from retaliation for union activities.”
Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Auto. Employees, Laundry Drivers & Helpers Local No. 88, 349 P.2d 76 (Cal. 1960).
· cites it 3× “representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” (Lab. Code, § 923) in violation of section 923 was directly contrary to the settled rule that section 923 does not restrict the…”
Murgia v. Mun. Court, 540 P.2d 44 (Cal. 1975).
· cites it 2× “, Lab. Code, § 923; 29 U.S.C. § 157 .) (11) In light of the constitutional and statutory foundations of workers' freedom of association, we have no doubt that an administrative policy which singles out individuals for prosecution on the basis of their exercise of the right to…”
Garcia v. Border Transp. Grp., LLC, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 360 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
“( Lab. Code, §§ 923 [employees may organize], 6310 [retaliation for an OSHA complaint], 6400 [duty to provide a safe work environment], 1102.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.