Decision 1518E – Compton Unified School District

Allegation in complaint that employer instructed employee to warn new teachers not to be influenced by union placed employer on notice that agency was at issue in the case. Even if employer was not placed on notice by the complaint, the agency issue could be addressed as an unalleged violation since the issue was addressed at hearing, both parties presented evidence on the issue and cross-examined witnesses, and both parties thoroughly briefed the issue establish that the issue. Although employee was not an actual agent of the employer, employee acted with ostensible or apparent authority when she entered a union meeting and warned all new teachers to leave. Employer accepted responsibility for employee’s actions by refusing to disavow or repudiate employee’s actions when they become known.

Employer unlawfully interfered with the exercise of protected activity by demanding that an employee reveal who called a union meeting and then removing the employee from her position when she failed to comply.

Employer unlawfully interfered with the exercise of protected activity by demanding that an employee reveal who called a union meeting and then removing the employee from her position when she failed to comply.

Employer unlawfully interfered with the exercise of protected activity by warning new teachers that, “if you know what’s good for you, you better leave now.”

Employer unlawfully interfered with the exercise of protected activity by warning new teachers that, “if you know what’s good for you, you better leave now.”

Loss of pay or benefits are not sole factors in determining whether employee has suffered an adverse action. Employee’s removal from school leadership team was an adverse action where service on the team was considered prestigious and reasonable people would consider the removal to have an adverse impact on the employee’s career.

Loss of pay or benefits are not sole factors in determining whether employee has suffered an adverse action. Employee’s removal from school leadership team was an adverse action where service on the team was considered prestigious and reasonable people would consider the removal to have an adverse impact on the employee’s career.

Allegation in complaint that employer instructed employee to warn new teachers not to be influenced by union placed employer on notice that agency was at issue in the case. Even if employer was not placed on notice by the complaint, the agency issue could be addressed as an unalleged violation since the issue was addressed at hearing, both parties presented evidence on the issue and cross-examined witnesses, and both parties thoroughly briefed the issue establish that the issue.

Allegation in complaint that employer instructed employee to warn new teachers not to be influenced by union placed employer on notice that agency was at issue in the case. Even if employer was not placed on notice by the complaint, the agency issue could be addressed as an unalleged violation since the issue was addressed at hearing, both parties presented evidence on the issue and cross-examined witnesses, and both parties thoroughly briefed the issue establish that the issue.

Although employee was not an actual agent of the employer, employee acted with ostensible or apparent authority when she entered a union meeting and warned all new teachers to leave. Employer accepted responsibility for employee’s actions by refusing to disavow or repudiate employee’s actions when they become known.

Although employee was not an actual agent of the employer, employee acted with ostensible or apparent authority when she entered a union meeting and warned all new teachers to leave. Employer accepted responsibility for employee’s actions by refusing to disavow or repudiate employee’s actions when they become known.