Decision 0895E – Sonoma County Junior College District

The fact that the president has followed faculty hiring committee recommendations in all but two other cases, does not as a matter of law establish that the president deviated from past hiring practices by refusing to select faculty candidates in accord with department faculty recommendations; p. 3, fn. 4.

Timing of the District's adverse action is completely overlapping the union organizing effort, but by itself would not be sufficient to establish nexus; p. 21, proposed dec.

Evidence of unlawful motivation found where Charging Party was refused permanent teaching position when he was: ranked as acceptable in four previous interviews; employed and re-employed by the college over successive years; and received favorable performance evaluations; p. 22, proposed dec.

Shifting justifications were found where gender equity was raised as additional justification to refuse to hire Charging Party; p. 22, proposed dec.

Respondent's aversion toward collective bargaining is supported by his own testimony; p. 21, proposed dec.

Given the vague and imprecise reasons for failure to hire Charging Party, it was found that the explanation for his nonselection was pretextual; p. 22, proposed dec.