Decision 1519H – Regents of the University of California (Los Alamos National Laboratory)
SF-CE-613-H
Decision Date: May 7, 2003
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Enter alleges that LANL denied her the right to a representative of her choice at a disciplinary meeting and tampered with a fact-finder’s synopsis of a grievance she filed with LANL.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie case of interference with an employee’s rights and for failure to satisfy the six-month statute of limitations. The Board affirmed the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge regarding representation, finding Enter had no standing to allege a unilateral change and that Enter failed to state a prima facie case of interference. However, the Board found the tampering allegation to be untimely and did not adopt the Board agent’s discussion of the merits of that allegation.
Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 67
Decision Headnotes
200.01000 – In General
A charging party claiming supervisory status must provide specific facts establishing that status. Enter did not provide any evidence of her supervisory status. Since LANL disputed her claim of supervisory status, the Board agent analyzed her claims under HEERA as if Enter was a non-supervisory employee.
200.04000 – Supervisors
A charging party claiming supervisory status must provide specific facts establishing that status. Enter did not provide any evidence of her supervisory status. Since LANL disputed her claim of supervisory status, the Board agent analyzed her claims under HEERA as if Enter was a non-supervisory employee.
300.12000 – Insistence on Union Representation
Under the Weingarten standard, if the purpose of an employer-employee meeting is to present a final disciplinary memo and is not investigatory, the employee has no right to union representation at the meeting. However, LANL allowed Enter to have representation at the meeting, though not the representative of her choice. These facts do not allege a prima facie case of interference under HEERA.
408.01000 – In General
Under the Weingarten standard, if the purpose of an employer-employee meeting is to present a final disciplinary memo and is not investigatory, the employee has no right to union representation at the meeting. However, LANL allowed Enter to have representation at the meeting, though not the representative of her choice. These facts do not allege a prima facie case of interference under HEERA.
602.01000 – In General
Enter, as an individual employee, lacked standing to allege a unilateral change by the employer for denying her a choice of representative in a disciplinary hearing.
1100.03000 – Standing
Enter, as an individual employee, lacked standing to allege a unilateral change by the employer for denying her a choice of representative in a disciplinary hearing.
1100.12000 – Extensions of Time
Enter’s failure to respond to a Board agent’s inquiry whether she needed an extension of time to file an amended charge after the deadline was proper grounds for a dismissal of Enter’s charge by the Board agent.
1101.01000 – In General
A charging party must establish that the challenged conduct did not fall outside the six-month statute of limitations in order for the Board to proceed to evaluate the merits of the charge. Enter did not provide the date of the alleged tampering of the report or the date the report was issued; therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to evaluate the merits of the charges.