Decision 1762S – State of California (Department of Consumer Affairs)
SA-CE-1451-S
Decision Date: April 15, 2005
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Wilson-Combs alleged that the state discriminated against her by refusing to meet with Wilson-Combs and her private attorney and by issuing a counseling memo to her.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge because Weingarten does not confer a right to representation by private counsel, the Board does not enforce whistleblower statutes, no dates were provided for Wilson-Combs’ alleged union activity. In addition, the Board lacks jurisdiction over claims of race or gender discrimination unless they allege an independent violation of the Dills Act.
Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 121
Decision Headnotes
101.01000 – In General
The Board lacks jurisdiction to address claims of race or gender discrimination unless they also allege an independent violation of the Dills Act.
408.01000 – In General
Under the Dills Act, Weingarten does not confer a right to representation by private counsel instead of her exclusive representative because Weingarten rights are grounded in the employee’s right to participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations and the corresponding right of employee organizations to represent their members in their employment relations with public school employers.
504.14000 – Other/In General
The charge did not allege a prima facie case of retaliation since PERB does not enforce whistleblower statutes, the charge did not allege facts showing the State’s improper motive, the dates or nature of her alleged union activity, and the State’s knowledge of her steward training.
505.01000 – In General
The charge did not allege a prima facie case of retaliation since PERB does not enforce whistleblower statutes, the charge did not allege facts showing the State’s improper motive, the dates or nature of her alleged union activity, and the State’s knowledge of her steward training. The Board rejected Wilson-Combs’ argument that it must presume the State’s unlawful motive for purposes of finding a prima facie case of retaliation. The charge did not specify the dates of her alleged union activity or facts showing the State’s knowledge of her activity. Contrary to PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), the charge did not contain a “clear and concise statement of the fact and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice.”
501.03000 – Knowledge of Protected Activity
The charge did not allege a prima facie case of retaliation since PERB does not enforce whistleblower statutes, the charge did not allege facts showing the State’s improper motive, the dates or nature of her alleged union activity, and the State’s knowledge of her steward training. The Board rejected Wilson-Combs’ argument that it must presume the State’s unlawful motive for purposes of finding a prima facie case of retaliation. The charge did not specify the dates of her alleged union activity or facts showing the State’s knowledge of her activity. Contrary to PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), the charge did not contain a “clear and concise statement of the fact and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice.”
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
Dills Act Section 3515.5 does not provide a right to self-representation. While Wilson-Combs has the right to meet with her employer without the union, the State is not required to meet and confer with her over terms and conditions of employment.
601.04000 – When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Dills Act Section 3515.5 does not provide a right to self-representation. While Wilson-Combs has the right to meet with her employer without the union, the State is not required to meet and confer with her over terms and conditions of employment.
608.01000 – In General
Dills Act Section 3515.5 does not provide a right to self-representation. While Wilson-Combs has the right to meet with her employer without the union, the State is not required to meet and confer with her over terms and conditions of employment. Wilson-Combs right to self-representation under the Dills Act does not include the right to be represented by private counsel. The State’s duty to bargain is owed to the exclusive representative, not to individual employees.
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge
The Board agent fulfilled the requirements of PERB Regulation 32620 in processing the charge. As required by PERB Regulation 32635, the appeal did not provide facts supporting its allegations that the Board agent did not properly investigate the charge, used ex parte communications with the State in rendering his decision and failed to determine whether the charge should be deferred to arbitration. The Board rejected Wilson-Combs’ argument that it must presume the State’s unlawful motive for purposes of finding a prima facie case of retaliation. The charge did not specify the dates of her alleged union activity or facts showing the State’s knowledge of her activity. Contrary to PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), the charge did not contain a “clear and concise statement of the fact and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice.”
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
As required by PERB Regulation 32635, the appeal did not provide facts supporting its allegations that the Board agent did not properly investigate the charge, used ex parte communications with the State in rendering his decision and failed to determine whether the charge should be deferred to arbitration. The Board rejected Wilson-Combs’ argument that it must presume the State’s unlawful motive for purposes of finding a prima facie case of retaliation. The charge did not specify the dates of her alleged union activity or facts showing the State’s knowledge of her activity. Contrary to PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), the charge did not contain a “clear and concise statement of the fact and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice.”
1107.20000 – Other
As required by PERB Regulation 32635, the appeal did not provide facts supporting its allegations that the Board agent did not properly investigate the charge, used ex parte communications with the State in rendering his decision and failed to determine whether the charge should be deferred to arbitration.
1503.01000 – In General
As required by PERB Regulation 32635, the appeal did not provide facts supporting its allegations that the Board agent did not properly investigate the charge, used ex parte communications with the State in rendering his decision and failed to determine whether the charge should be deferred to arbitration. The Board agent fulfilled the requirements of PERB Regulation 32620 in processing the charge. The Board rejected Wilson-Combs’ argument that it must presume the State’s unlawful motive for purposes of finding a prima facie case of retaliation. The charge did not specify the dates of her alleged union activity or facts showing the State’s knowledge of her activity. Contrary to PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), the charge did not contain a “clear and concise statement of the fact and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice.”