EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; PERSONS PROTECTED – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2884H

View all topics for Decision 2884H

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

During the timeframe that the University litigated the accretion petition’s merits, the petitioned-for class remained unrepresented and the University had no bargaining obligation with respect to the petitioned-for class, but the University would have discriminated against protected activity had it used the pending unit modification petition as a reason to deny the petitioned-for class the wage adjustments due to them as unrepresented employees. (See, e.g., Regents of the University of California (1997) PERB Decision No. 1188-H, pp. 31 & 36 [University discriminated against protected activity by failing to implement wage adjustments for nonexclusively represented employees because representation petition was pending; as a remedy, University ordered to implement such adjustments retroactively].) (p. 13.)