Decision 1983M – Menlo Park Fire Protection District
SF-CE-390-M
Decision Date: October 28, 2008
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board affirmed the dismissal of an unfair practice charge in which the Charging Party alleged the District retaliated against an employee for engaging in protected conduct.
Disposition: The Board held the dismissal was appropriate because the Charging Party failed to establish a nexus between the alleged adverse action and the employee’s protected conducted.
Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 158
Decision Headnotes
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
Reporting safety concerns to an exclusive representative constitutes protected activity. However, one of the key elements to finding protected conduct in such cases is the actual reporting of the safety concerns to the exclusive representative. Therefore, harboring safety concerns is insufficient, standing alone, to establish protected conduct.
300.06000 – Demands for Change in Working Conditions
Reporting safety concerns to an exclusive representative constitutes protected activity. However, one of the key elements to finding protected conduct in such cases is the actual reporting of the safety concerns to the exclusive representative. Therefore, harboring safety concerns is insufficient, standing alone, to establish protected conduct.
300.17000 – Other
Reporting safety concerns to an exclusive representative constitutes protected activity. However, one of the key elements to finding protected conduct in such cases is the actual reporting of the safety concerns to the exclusive representative. Therefore, harboring safety concerns is insufficient, standing alone, to establish protected conduct.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation under the MMBA, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. The unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because the facts alleged were insufficient to establish a nexus between the alleged adverse action and the employee’s protected conduct.
504.14000 – Other/In General
In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation under the MMBA, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. The unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because the facts alleged were insufficient to establish a nexus between the alleged adverse action and the employee’s protected conduct.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation under the MMBA, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. The unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because the facts alleged were insufficient to establish a nexus between the alleged adverse action and the employee’s protected conduct.