Decision 1672H – Trustees of the California State University

LA-CE-726-H

Decision Date: August 6, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  CFA alleged that CSU implemented policies regarding investigation of whistleblower complaints without notice or opportunity to bargain.

Disposition:  The Board dismissed the charge because the policies on their face did not change policies regarding employee privacy rights, employee cooperation during the investigation of a whistleblower retaliation complaint or the right to union representation.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 217

Decision Headnotes

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.01000 – In General

The policies on their face did not exhibit a change in policy concerning employee privacy rights, the requirement for employee cooperation during the investigation of a whistleblower retaliation complaint, or the right to union representation. Trustees of the California State University (2004) PERB Decision No. 1658-H involves nearly identical facts and is dispositive of this case. Executive Order 644, issued in 1997, has been superseded by Executive Order 822 and is no longer in effect. CFA failed to provide examples of unlawful implementation and thus did not state a prima facie case of unilateral change.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.06000 – Change in Past Practice

The policies on their face did not exhibit a change in policy concerning employee privacy rights, the requirement for employee cooperation during the investigation of a whistleblower retaliation complaint, or the right to union representation. Trustees of the California State University (2004) PERB Decision No. 1658-H involves nearly identical facts and is dispositive of this case. Executive Order 644, issued in 1997, has been superseded by Executive Order 822 and is no longer in effect. CFA failed to provide examples of unlawful implementation and thus did not state a prima facie case of unilateral change.