Decision 1759E – Stockton Unified School District
SA-CE-2206-E
Decision Date: March 28, 2005
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charge alleged that the district discriminated against an employee and unilaterally changed the release time and involuntary transfer policies.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge finding there was no evidence that the district was motivated by the employee’s protected activity when it denied employee’s release time request and involuntarily transferred her to another school site. Further, there was no evidence that the district departed from existing policies.
Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 104
Decision Headnotes
608.05000 – Past Practice; Maintenance of Status Quo
Even if the district had limited its past application of the contract, it still maintains the right to adhere to and enforce the contractual language of the CBA. (Marysville Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 314.) Notwithstanding any past practice, the district was within its rights to transfer the employee involuntarily provided that it complied with the contract; p. 4.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
In the absence of a clear and concise statement of facts showing a District past practice of always granting release time requests, Board is inclined to give more weight to District’s evidence.
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
In the absence of a clear and concise statement of facts showing a District past practice of always granting release time requests, Board is inclined to give more weight to District’s evidence.
1105.03000 – Burden of Proof; Weight of Evidence; Presumptions and Inferences; Affirmative Defenses
In the absence of a clear and concise statement of facts showing a District past practice of always granting release time requests, Board is inclined to give more weight to District’s evidence.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Regulation 32130(c) granted the charging party a five-day extension of time to file its appeal because the dismissal of the charge was served by mail; p. 2.
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)
Regulation 32130(c) granted the charging party a five-day extension of time to file its appeal because the dismissal of the charge was served by mail; p. 2.