Decision 0872H – Regents of the University of California (Einheber)

An individual employee's letter to University chancellor, protesting a policy affecting working conditions of all employees, was not written on behalf of others. Expression of "personal" views does not constitute protected conduct; p. 25. HEERA protects employees who seek union representation in the University's grievance procedure, but unlike EERA and the Dills Act, it does not provide a separate statutory right for employees to represent themselves individually; p. 27.

Grievances entirely personal in nature filed under a University policy, not a collective agreement, do not constitute protected conduct under HEERA; p. 24.

An association member's review and comment on an employee's letter to University chancellor, in which the employee conveys his personal views on a policy affecting working conditions, is insufficient to constitute protected conduct; p. 25. Merely including the name of a union representative among those receiving a copy of correspondence does not, without more, constitute protected conduct.

Elements of Novato test stated; Employee fails to show he engaged in protected conduct.