Decision 1778E – Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District
SF-CE-2397-E
Decision Date: October 6, 2005
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charge alleged that the district discriminated against the chapter president by eliminating her position, unilaterally transferring her duties from one classification to other classifications, and failing or refusing to provide requested information.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the unfair practice charge finding that there is no nexus between protected activity (union chapter president) and adverse action (decision to eliminate position and to lay off employee), to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination. Where an exclusive representative has received notice of the decision, the employer’s failure to give formal notice is of no legal import. Absent any evidence that clarification was sought by union, or that information was incomplete, the district did not fail to provide requested information. The district had no obligation to meet and negotiate its decision to transfer duties from the abolished classification to other classifications.
Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 167
Decision Headnotes
300.01000 – In General
For purposes of establishing a prima facie case, CSEA has demonstrated that Tyner participated in protected activities by serving as the chapter president, participating on the bargaining committee and assisting in resolving grievances as the job steward. CSEA represented Tyner in matters involving her own working conditions.
300.05000 – Grievances
For purposes of establishing a prima facie case, CSEA has demonstrated that Tyner participated in protected activities by serving as the chapter president, participating on the bargaining committee and assisting in resolving grievances as the job steward. CSEA represented Tyner in matters involving her own working conditions.
300.13000 – Holding Union Office
For purposes of establishing a prima facie case, CSEA has demonstrated that Tyner participated in protected activities by serving as the chapter president, participating on the bargaining committee and assisting in resolving grievances as the job steward. CSEA represented Tyner in matters involving her own working conditions.
300.17000 – Other
For purposes of establishing a prima facie case, CSEA has demonstrated that Tyner participated in protected activities by serving as the chapter president, participating on the bargaining committee and assisting in resolving grievances as the job steward. CSEA represented Tyner in matters involving her own working conditions.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Absent sufficient evidence to show that District departed from any established procedures or policies in eliminating position, there is no nexus between protected activity (union chapter president) and adverse action (decision to eliminate position and to lay off employee), to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination; pp. 2-3.
503.07000 – Discharge; Layoffs; Constructive Discharge; Rejection During Probation
The decision to eliminate the ASB/EDA position and to lay off Tyner was adverse to her interests.
602.02000 – Prior Notice and Opportunity to Bargain
Where an exclusive representative has received notice of the decision to eliminate a position, the effects of which it believes to be negotiable, the employer’s failure to give formal notice is of no legal import; pp. 4-5.
604.01000 – In General
The District provided statement of purpose at beginning of interview that the District was seeking information on the process for the collecting and accounting of associated student body funds. Absent any evidence that clarification was sought by union, or that information was incomplete, allegation that District failed to provide requested information does not state prima facie case; pp. 4-5.
1000.02147 – Transfer of Work Out of Unit
CSEA failed to establish a prima facie case that the District had the obligation to meet and negotiate its decision to transfer duties from the abolished ASB/EDA classification to other classifications. Since CSEA did not identify the classifications to which the duties had been transferred, it cannot be determined whether or not these other classifications were existing or newly created classifications, within or outside of the existing bargaining unit. CSEA presented no evidence to show that the transferred duties were neither overlapping nor even remotely encompassed in the job description of these other classifications.