Decision 1655M – Marin County Law Library

SF-CE-159-M

Decision Date: July 2, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  Request for reconsideration not granted when same facts presented on appeal were set forth and no grounds set forth in PERB Regulation 32410 were included.

Disposition:  Charge must indicate protected activity and nexus with adverse action to establish prima facie case of unfair practice.  Board found no protected activity.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 195

Decision Headnotes

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

Decorating a library cart, asking for a job description and requesting a schedule change does not constitute protected activities. Complaining to library patrons about working conditions may constitute protected activity but there is no information demonstrating that patrons informed the supervisor of the complaints.

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

Decorating a library cart, asking for a job description and requesting a schedule change does not constitute protected activities. Complaining to library patrons about working conditions may constitute protected activity but there is no information demonstrating that patrons informed the supervisor of the complaints.

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

Activity must be protected activity and their must be a nexus with adverse action to establish a prima facie case of unfair labor practice. Where the activities of charging party were not protected activity, and no nexus was established with adverse action, there was no prima facie case established.

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

Activity must be protected activity and their must be a nexus with adverse action to establish a prima facie case of unfair labor practice. Where the activities of charging party were not protected activity, and no nexus was established with adverse action, there was no prima facie case established.