EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; PERSONS PROTECTED – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2804E

View all topics for Decision 2804E

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

The Board held that the amended charge sufficiently alleged that Charging Party participated in EERA-protected activity. Specifically, at the time of her termination, Charging Party was the union chapter vice president and a member of the union’s negotiating team. Charging Party also engaged in EERA-protected activity when she: (1) requested information from the school district about a new salary schedule containing a lower hourly rate, and raised concerns about family care leave and other leaves; (2) requested contractual leave to attend the union annual conference; (3) raised issues about the hourly rate calculation with the school district; and (4) raised concerns with the school district over a proposed equity clause in the union contract. (p. 10.)