Decision 0913E – Monterey County Office of Education

Charging party failed to prove nexus between alleged protected activity and adverse action; p. 4, proposed dec.

Charging party's allegations sufficient to state a prima facie case where the unfair practice charge lacked in specifics and could have been stated with greater clarity; p. 4.

Under PERB Regulation 32620, a Board agent is specifically enpowered to use telephone conversations to facilitate communication and the exchange of information between the parties; p. 3. Board agent may not take as conclusive ex parte statements regarding allegations in an unfair practice charge. Except for this limitation, the Board agent has the authority to conduct an investigation to determine whether the unfair practice charge allegations state a prima facie case; p. 4. As respondent was informed of oral allegations of the charging party and was provided opportunity to respond, no prejudice occurred by Board agent's consideration of the oral allegations; pp. 3-4, fn. 5)

Oral argument denied as the matter was thoroughly litigated by the parties and there are sufficient facts in the record to allow the Board to reach its decision; p. 2, fn. 2.

Regulation 32620 permits Board agent to make inquiries of charging party and if respondent is allowed to respond to new allegations, there is no prejudice to the respondent.