EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION – Lack of Knowledge of Protected Activity

Single Topic for Decision 2804E

View all topics for Decision 2804E

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

Charging Party’s supervisor knew that she used union release time and requested leave to attend the union’s annual conference. Charging Party’s supervisor also complained about Charging Party’s attendance at union meetings. The acting vice chancellor of human resources knew of Charging Party’s request for leave to attend the union’s annual conference and of Charging Party’s concerns about the proposed contractual equity clause. The Board inferred that the acting vice chancellor of human resources was aware of Charging Party’s information request and concerns over leave, and her concerns over the hourly rate calculation. The acting vice chancellor of human resources issued the Notice of Intent to Discipline informing Charging Party of the charges against her and the school district’s intent to terminate her employment. The Board held that the amended charge thus sufficiently alleged that at least one person involved in Charging Party’s termination knew of her protected activities. (p. 11.)