Decision 1590H – Regents of the University of California (Davis)

SA-CE-195-H

Decision Date: January 26, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 67

Decision Headnotes

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
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.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
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

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.