Decision 0895E – Sonoma County Junior CD

SF-CE-1330

Decision Date: August 12, 1991

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 15
Perc Index: 22132

Decision Headnotes

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.03000 – Departure from Past Practices or Procedures

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.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.04000 – Timing of Action

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.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.06000 – Meritorious or Satisfactory Work Record; Prior Promotion or Wage Increase

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.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.07000 – No reason or Inconsistent Reasons Given; Shifting Justifications

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

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.12000 – Employer Statements or Conduct; Threats

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

505.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES
505.11000 – Legitimate Business Purpose/Business Necessity

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.