All notes for Subtopic 505.05000 – Dishonesty or Disloyalty to Employer

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2736M City of Santa Maria
505.5000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Dishonesty or Disloyalty to Employer
Employer could not establish that suspected employee misconduct prompted it to investigate employees and their protected activities. There was no evidence that the employees’ protected activities, viz. issuing a “do not apply” communication to firefighters in outside departments, resulted in any disruption to the employer’s operations. Many protected concerted activities are undertaken for the purpose of disrupting the employer’s unfair practices and operations. In the absence of evidence that such activities “create a substantial and imminent threat to the health or safety of the public” (County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees Assn. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564, 586) there is no basis to believe that a communication like the one at issue here was rendered unprotected by its alleged success. (Page 28.) more or view all topics or full text.
06/30/20
2692M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City of South Pasadena
505.5000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Dishonesty or Disloyalty to Employer
Employer did not meet its burden of proving it would have terminated employee even if he had not engaged in protected activities since employer did not adequately establish that employee engaged in the misconduct he was accused of. (Adopting proposed decision at p. 24.) more or view all topics or full text.
01/30/20
2458E Jurupa Unified School District
505.5000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Dishonesty or Disloyalty to Employer
Exaggerated accusations of “insubordination” and bad attitude have been found to be pretextual where they were factually inaccurate and not adequately explained by other evidence. more or view all topics or full text.
407510/23/15
1714E Simi Valley Unified School District
505.5000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Dishonesty or Disloyalty to Employer
The teacher engaged in protected conduct in his role as Association site representative, representing coworkers in meetings with the school principal, challenging the proposed independent study program at staff meetings and by memo, discussions of the program with the Association, and participation in a meeting with management and Association representatives to resolve concerns about the program. Requests for representation in and of themselves are protected conduct. The teacher’s request for representation for a proposed meeting with the principle was therefore protected. An employer acts unlawfully if it retaliates in the mistaken belief that the employee has engaged in protected activity. The principal expressed on several occasions her mistaken belief that the teacher had filed a grievance about the independent study program. more or view all topics or full text.
291911/29/04
1697H Trustees of the California State University
505.5000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Dishonesty or Disloyalty to Employer
Cornelius did not state facts showing a nexus between her protected conduct (signing up for steward training) and the adverse actions (notice of termination and refusal to hire her for other positions). Rather, evidence shows that CSU approved her steward training and that Cornelius was terminated for misconduct. more or view all topics or full text.
2826409/30/04
1435S State of California (Department of Corrections)
505.5000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Dishonesty or Disloyalty to Employer
Individual complaints about employment matters, including threats to go to the newspapers, are protected as part of an employee's right to self representation. Even assuming charging party made the comment attributed to him in the letter of reprimand, it would still be protected. The statements related to employment conditions, and there was no merit to the claim that charging party was disloyal or that his comments were untrue; pp. 32-36 proposed dec. Acting as a job steward, employee who said he would contact union for legal advise if investigation blocked his promotion and might go to newspapers with health and safety concerns are protected acts. The Board rejected the State's claim that comments uttered by charging party were violative of PERB case law governing speech in the workplace. To decide whether speech is lawful, a principal consideration is whether the speech contains a "threat of reprisal or force," under an objective rather than a subjective standard. The fact that an employer may interpret statements, which are otherwise protected, as coercive does not necessarily render those statements unlawful. Statements are viewed in their overall context to determine if they have a coercive meaning; pp. 36-43, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
253206805/11/01