Decision 1552E – Los Angeles Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495

LA-CE-4355-E

Decision Date: October 21, 2003

Decision Type: PERB Decision

 * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495 * * *

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 7

Decision Headnotes

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation

Bailey’s complaints on her own behalf to a supervisor about a subordinate do not rise to the level of protected activity. This is distinguished from cases in which the Board found that an employee’s complaint concerned an issue impacting employees generally and thus, was protected.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.06000 – Demands for Change in Working Conditions

Bailey’s complaints on her own behalf to a supervisor about a subordinate do not rise to the level of protected activity. This is distinguished from cases in which the Board found that an employee’s complaint concerned an issue impacting employees generally and thus, was protected.

501.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case

Bailey’s complaints on her own behalf to a supervisor about a subordinate do not rise to the level of protected activity. This is distinguished from cases in which the Board found that an employee’s complaint concerned an issue impacting employees generally and thus, was protected.

502.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; PERSONS PROTECTED
502.01000 – In General

Bailey’s complaints on her own behalf to a supervisor about a subordinate do not rise to the level of protected activity. This is distinguished from cases in which the Board found that an employee’s complaint concerned an issue impacting employees generally and thus, was protected.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

Bailey failed to provide specifics supporting her charge regarding her complaints about a subordinate and about her supervisor as required by PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) and so there is insufficient information to determine whether she engaged in protected conduct.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.04000 – Amendments

The Board declined to consider Bailey’s amended charge because, inter alia, it did not list the District on the proof of service and because it was filed several days late.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

Bailey failed to provide specifics supporting her charge regarding her complaints about a subordinate and about her supervisor as required by PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) and so there is insufficient information to determine whether she engaged in protected conduct. The Board declined to consider Bailey’s amended charge because, inter alia, it did not list the District on the proof of service and because it was filed several days late.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

The Board declined to consider Bailey’s amended charge because, inter alia, it did not list the District on the proof of service and because it was filed several days late.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.20000 – Other

The Board declined to consider Bailey’s amended charge because, inter alia, it did not list the District on the proof of service and because it was filed several days late.

1109.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL
1109.01000 – In General

Bailey has not shown good cause to present issues in the amended charge, which was not served on the District and was not timely filed, in her appeal. Bailey also raised unspecified complaints against her supervisor for events that occurred from November 2000 to October 2001. Since she did not describe the nature of these complaints nor justify why they were raised for the first time on appeal, she did not show good cause to present these allegations at this time.