All notes for Subtopic 801.05500 – Discrimination

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2744E San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.)
801.05500: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Discrimination
It is well-established that initiating an investigation of alleged misconduct is an adverse action. (Service Employees International Union, Local 221 (Gutierrez) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2277-M, p. 9; California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-S, p. 12.) However, a union’s decision to investigate an internal discrimination complaint does not normally impact a bargaining unit employee’s relationship with his or her employer. This was an unusual case in which an internal union action initially appeared not to impact any employer-employee but ultimately appeared to do so when the union’s internal investigation report later provided the basis for the District’s written reprimand. more or view all topics or full text.
453508/31/20
2744E San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.)
801.05500: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Discrimination
In evaluating a discrimination or retaliation claim, PERB generally applies the same test irrespective of whether the respondent is an employer or a union. In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a charging party must allege facts showing that: (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 15.) If the charging party establishes these factors, certain fact patterns nonetheless allow a respondent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the same action even absent the protected activity. (Id. at pp. 15-16.) Additionally, in an unfair practice charge alleging that a union discriminated or retaliated against protected activity, the charging party must allege facts showing that the union’s conduct impacted the employer-employee relationship. (California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S, pp. 27-28; California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1479-S, pp. 13-17, citing Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106.) more or view all topics or full text.
453508/31/20
2572M San Bernardino Public Employees Association
801.05500: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Discrimination
Statement that union president intended to file disciplinary charges against employee for perjury was not an adverse action where employee was informed the next working day, through no effort of his own, that union president would not be filing charges. more or view all topics or full text.
43706/21/18
2199M Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific (O'Keefe)
801.05500: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Discrimination
Charge failed to establish prima facie case of discrimination/retaliation. Board will not intervene in disputes that involve only the internal union activities of an employee organization unless those activities substantially impact employer-employee relations. Under a retaliation analysis, charge adequately alleged the first two elements that charging party participated in protected activities of filing PERB charges and assisting in prosecution of a co-worker’s PERB charge and that the employee organization had knowledge of those activities. Charge failed to allege facts to establish that either the employee organization’s decision not to pursue charging party’s grievance or its issuance of a letter of reprimand to charging party had an adverse impact on employment for purposes of establishing the adverse action element of a retaliation case. Charge also failed to set forth any facts establishing unlawful motive or nexus. more or view all topics or full text.
363908/29/11
2194E American Federation of Teachers Part-Time Faculty United, Local 6286 (Peavy)
801.05500: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Discrimination
Charge failed to establish that union’s refusal to represent him in his grievance constitutes disparate treatment and therefore discrimination because union handled the grievances of employees. A finding of disparate treatment requires a showing that others have been treated differently for similar or identical conduct or in a similar situation. Charge fails to allege any facts showing that the other grievances arose under similar circumstances and contains no facts concerning the nature of the other employees’ grievances. In addition, employee was not similarly situated because he expressly chose to file a grievance himself and to represent himself in mediation. Therefore, the charge fails to establish that union acted discriminatorily in its handling of his grievance. more or view all topics or full text.
362808/12/11
2069H State Employees Trades Council United (Ventura, et al.)
801.05500: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Discrimination
Charging parties failed to establish a nexus between their decision not to comply with their union’s request that they participate in a demonstration in support of another union and the union’s decision to support a reduction in charging parties’ salaries. more or view all topics or full text.
3316810/05/09