Decision 1849M – County of Santa Cruz

SF-CE-111-M

Decision Date: August 16, 2006

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 30
Perc Index: 151

Decision Headnotes

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.01000 – In General

While it is clear that a doctor engaged in protected activities as an active officer of the Association, the charge fails to demonstrate the County laid him off because of his protected activities.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.13000 – Holding Union Office

While it is clear that a doctor engaged in protected activities as an active officer of the Association, the charge fails to demonstrate the County laid him off because of his protected activities.

501.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case

Charging party failed to allege nexus for layoff determination.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.01000 – In General

Charging party did not demonstrate that County took adverse against employee, as she was not reprimanded or disciplined.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.03000 – Departure from Past Practices or Procedures

Charging party failed to allege nexus for layoff determination as it was undisputed that the doctor was the least senior physician and was therefore slated to be laid off consistent with the prior MOU and the County’s past practice.

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

Charging party failed to state a prima facie case of a unilateral change because County did not make unilateral change when it provided the information requested by the Association in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement; County also did not make unilateral change because it did in fact meet with the Association about layoff alternatives. County may have contemplated changing the hours of employees, but no employee hours were actually altered, therefore the Charging party failed to state a prima facie case of unilateral change.

604.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
604.01000 – In General

Charging party failed to state a prima facie case of a unilateral change because County did not make unilateral change when it provided the information requested by the Association in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.01000 – In General

Extra help employees are not permanent and thus are not part of the Association’s bargaining unit under their collective bargaining agreement.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.04000 – Non-Bargaining Unit Employees; Inappropriate Bargaining Unit

Extra help employees are not permanent and thus are not part of the Association’s bargaining unit under their collective bargaining agreement.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated

Association did not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the County actually contracted out bargaining unit work. The union presented documentation that County approved money to contract with physicians, but charge did not indicate whether any physicians were actually hired.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.01000 – In General

Charging Party failed to state a prima facie case of unilateral change, discrimination, contracting out or a violation of the duty to provide information.