Decision 1664M – City and County of San Francisco

Although most of the events occurred before July 1, 2001, the Board has authority to adjudicate this charge under the MMBA.

Poon engaged in protected activity by her status as job steward and chapter president as well as leave time used to participate in union activities.

Poon engaged in protected activity by her status as job steward and chapter president as well as leave time used to participate in union activities

Poon engaged in protected activity by her status as job steward and chapter president as well as leave time used to participate in union activities.

Although Poon stated a prima facie case of interference, the City contended that her involuntary transfer was due to lack of work in her department. Local 790 was advised of this response in the warning letter but did not file an amended charge to dispute this fact and so did not refute the employer’s claim of legitimate business reasons for its action.

Local 790 has not cited authority to support its allegation that it is unlawful for the City to insist on mailing grievance responses to Local 790’s address and not to Poon’s work address and so no interference is found here.

Although Poon stated a prima facie case of interference, the City contended that her involuntary transfer was due to lack of work in her department. Local 790 was advised of this response in the warning letter but did not file an amended charge to dispute this fact and so did not refute the employer’s claim of legitimate business reasons for its action.

The charge did not allege sufficient information to show that the City’s conduct of involuntary transfer, failure to invite to meetings, order to cease outside correspondence, and order to provide schedule, comprises adverse action since it must involve actual and not merely speculative harm. The inquiry is whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.

The charge did not allege sufficient information to show that the City’s conduct of involuntary transfer, failure to invite to meetings, order to cease outside correspondence, and order to provide schedule, comprises adverse action since it must involve actual and not merely speculative harm. The inquiry is whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.

Local 790 did not provide any specifics on how the City’s reorganization and relocation of work units impacted terms and conditions of employment or of any attempts to demand bargaining over the impacts. Therefore, the Board dismissed these claims of unilateral change.

Local 790 did not provide any specifics on how the City’s reorganization and relocation of work units impacted terms and conditions of employment or of any attempts to demand bargaining over the impacts. Therefore, the Board dismissed these claims of unilateral change.

Local 790 did not provide any specifics on how the City’s reorganization and relocation of work units impacted terms and conditions of employment or of any attempts to demand bargaining over the impacts. Therefore, the Board dismissed these claims of unilateral change.

With regard to the labor/management health and safety committee, Local 790 was advised in the warning letter of the City’s contentions that it invited unions, including Local 790, to discuss the development of the committee, that a proposed structure was ultimately submitted to unions for review, and that Local 790 did not attend a meeting about the committee or provide feedback on the proposed committee structure. Local 790 did not file an amended charge to refute these facts so that this claim of unilateral change was dismissed.

Local 790 did not allege a date for which the City issued a directive that a job steward must be available to employees during an investigation. This allegation did not specify the facts alleged to constitute an unfair practice under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5). Although it did not provide this information in an amended charge, Local 790 alleged a time element on appeal but did not allege facts to show good cause to add the information at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, under PERB Regulation 32635(b), the allegation is dismissed.

Local 790 did not allege a date for which the City issued a directive that a job steward must be available to employees during an investigation. This allegation did not specify the facts alleged to constitute an unfair practice under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5). Although it did not provide this information in an amended charge, Local 790 alleged a time element on appeal but did not allege facts to show good cause to add the information at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, under PERB Regulation 32635(b), the allegation is dismissed.

Local 790 did not allege a date for which the City issued a directive that a job steward must be available to employees during an investigation. This allegation did not specify the facts alleged to constitute an unfair practice under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5). Although it did not provide this information in an amended charge, Local 790 alleged a time element on appeal but did not allege facts to show good cause to add the information at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, under PERB Regulation 32635(b), the allegation is dismissed.