Decision 1590H – Regents of the University of California (Davis)
SA-CE-195-H
Decision Date: January 26, 2004
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: UC’s blood gas lab became short-staffed and UC promised the remaining employees extra shift pay to work additional shifts. The unlicensed lab technicians worked extra shifts but did not get the extra pay. The technicians wrote that they would not work extra shifts until they received the extra pay. UC responded by saying the positions now required a license. UC later laid off the lab technicians.
Disposition: The Board agent found the charge untimely because the notice of the licensing requirement occurred more than 6 months before the charge. Citing 1585, the Board found that in discrimination cases, the date of the actual termination, not the date of notice of termination, is the triggering date. The Board found the charge timely. The Board also found that AFSCME stated a prima facie case of discrimination and remanded the charge for issuance of a complaint. A supervisor had stated the layoffs were caused by the employee complaints. When there is direct evidence of unlawful intent, it is unnecessary to determine the existence of circumstantial evidence.
Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 67
Decision Headnotes
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
The lab employees engaged in protected conduct by writing a letter to management stating that they no longer wished to work extra shifts unless they received the promised additional pay, and by meeting with union representatives and management on various occasions to discuss the issue.
300.06000 – Demands for Change in Working Conditions
The lab employees engaged in protected conduct by writing a letter to management stating that they no longer wished to work extra shifts unless they received the promised additional pay, and by meeting with union representatives and management on various occasions to discuss the issue.
504.14000 – Other/In General
Management’s statement that they laid off employees because of the employees’ complaints constitutes direct evidence of unlawful intent. Where there is direct evidence of unlawful intent, it is unnecessary for the Board to determine the existence, or lack thereof, of circumstantial evidence
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
The charge was timely filed under the recent ruling in Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1585-H, in which the date of actual termination, not the notice of termination, triggers the statute of limitations in discrimination cases. The employees were actually laid off less than six months before filing the charge and therefore the charge is timely.