UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES – Holding Union Office UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES – Demands for Change in Working Conditions

Single Topic for Decision 2712M


View all topics for Decision 2712M

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.13000 – Holding Union Office 300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.06000 – Demands for Change in Working Conditions

Under Santa Clara Valley Water District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2349-M, an employee’s role as a union officer constitutes protected activity irrespective of whether the employee exercises specific duties in that role. Thus, there is no categorical requirement that a union’s retaliation charge on behalf of a union officer necessarily allege specific duties the officer exercised. A charging party seeking to prove employer knowledge and nexus may be well-advised to introduce evidence of specific times a union officer exercised his or her role, but such evidence may not be needed if the charging party presents other strong evidence and the respondent is not able to present a persuasive non-discriminatory explanation for having taken adverse action. (p. 17.)