Decision 1782C – Lake County Superior Court
SF-CE-1-C
Decision Date: November 1, 2005
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board dismissed an unfair practice charge in which the charging party alleged numerous violations of the Trial Court Act, including the denial of due process under Article 5, a wrongful placement in an employee group, discrimination and failure to meet and confer.
Disposition: The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to enforce due process violations in connection with disciplinary decisions under Article 5 of the Trial Court Act. In addition, the Board held the charging party, as a private individual, lacked standing to pursue an alleged meet and confer violation by the employer. The Board also held the charging party failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she failed to demonstrate a nexus between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Last, with regard to the wrongful placement issue, the Board held the charge was not timely filed.
Perc Vol: 30
Perc Index: 7
Decision Headnotes
101.01000 – In General
Pursuant to Government Code section 71655, PERB lacks jurisdiction to enforce due process violations in connection with disciplinary decisions under Article 5 of the Trial Court Act.
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes
Pursuant to Government Code section 71655, PERB lacks jurisdiction to enforce due process violations in connection with disciplinary decisions under Article 5 of the Trial Court Act.
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
Pursuant to Government Code section 71655, PERB lacks jurisdiction to enforce due process violations in connection with disciplinary decisions under Article 5 of the Trial Court Act.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of section 71635.1 of the Trial Court Act and PERB Regulation 32603(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Trial Court Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee because of the exercise of those rights. Although the timing of the employer’s adverse action in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor, it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct.
601.02000 – Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201)
Individual employees do not have standing to file a charge alleging the employer failed to comply with the meet and confer requirements of the Trial Court Act.
1100.03000 – Standing
Individual employees do not have standing to file a charge alleging the employer failed to comply with the meet and confer requirements of the Trial Court Act. Individual employees do not have standing to pursue the meet and confer rights of an employee organization.
1101.01000 – In General
The statute of limitations for unfair practice charged filed under the Trial Court Act is six months.