Decision 1368S – California State Employees Association (Hutchinson)

Employees on approved leaves of absence from civil service appointments retain their status as employees for the purpose of Dills Act coverage. Employee can challenge alleged discriminatory termination because she was employee at time of alleged unlawful conduct. Employee who has been terminated from her position as a State employee, allegedly in violation of the Dills Act, is not an "employee" for purposes of the Dills Act because she had no absolute right to return to a civil service position within State service.

Board expressly reaffirms that the Dills Act does not protect solely internal union participation and activities of employees which do not have a substantial impact on employer-employee relations. The burden of proof is on the charging party to demonstrate the existence of such an impact. To the extent that any language in (California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1126-S) or other Board decisions, including but not limited to (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Seliga) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1289) and (California State Employees Association (O'Connell) (1989) PERB Decision No. 753-H), can be read as an exception to this policy, those cases are overruled. A lost timer who participated in numerous events that involved a dissident group, but failed to demonstrate that her participation in CDU events impacted employer-employee relations did not engage in protected activity. Charging parties Hard and Hackett, who are State employees on leave of absence from their State positions while serving as full time union activists, failed to present evidence of any impact on employer-employee relations associated with the internal CSEA activity which forms the basis of this dispute. Because they have not met their burden of proof, their conduct was unprotected and their allegations are dismissed. Charging party Reveles, an active CDU participant, has not presented evidence that any of her internal union activities (wearing dissident buttons on t-shirts) had a substantial impact on employer-employee relations. Therefore, that conduct was not protected by the Dills Act, and her unfair practice charge and complaint must be dismissed.