Decision 1063S – State of California (Department of General Services) (Strickland)

Filing grivances regarding overtime, complaints of retaliatory transfers, disputes over confidentiality of home telephone numbers and pay warrants, etc., are clearly protected; p. 25, proposed dec.

Although many of the charging party's complaints, such as those filed with the State Personnel Board, Attorney General, Los Angeles District Attorney, etc., might not be protected by the Dills Act, much other activity, such as filing health and safety complaints, grievances regarding overtime, complaints of retaliatory transfers, disputes over confidentiality of home telephone numbers and pay warrants, etc., are clearly protected; p. 25, proposed dec.

While it may be protected for the charging party to advocate the removal of the Chief Engineer I (CE I) classification from the bargaining unit, his stated intention to proceed with a civil tort action regarding CE I involvement on the interview panel and his refusal to take direction from a CE I, are not protected by the Dills Act; p. 27, proposed dec.

It is not improper for bargaining unit members to participate on interview panels or to oversee the work assignments, to some degree, of other bargaining unit employees; p. 26, proposed dec.

Even if charging party's technical skills, experience, education, flexibility and dependability had been far superior to the other candidate, the employer could legitimately have rejected charging party based solely upon his lack of interpersonal skills and his erratic and abusive behavior. An applicant has no right to expect that a history of abusive behavior will be disregarded simply because the offensive behavior may have, on occasion, occurred in pursuit of legitimate and possibly protected issues; p. 30, proposed dec.

It is not improper for bargaining unit members to participate on interview panels or to oversee the work assignments, to some degree, of other bargaining unit employees; p. 26, proposed dec.