Decision 1851H – Regents of the University of California
SF-CE-768-H
Decision Date: August 21, 2006
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged that the Regents of the University of California violated HEERA by issuing a counseling memo to a bargaining unit member in response to his appeal of a performance evaluation.
Disposition: The Board upheld the dismissal because charging party failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus. Additionally, the charge was devoid of any facts demonstrating disparate treatment or failure to follow established procedures.
Perc Vol: 30
Perc Index: 153
Decision Headnotes
503.01000 – In General
Argument could be made that counseling memos are not an adverse action where counseling memos are not considered discipline under the parties collective bargaining agreement. Even assuming the counseling memo was an adverse action, the charge failed to demonstrate nexus.
503.03000 – Warning Letters, Reprimands, Evaluations
Argument could be made that counseling memos are not an adverse action where counseling memos are not considered discipline under the parties collective bargaining agreement. Even assuming the counseling memo was an adverse action, the charge failed to demonstrate nexus.
504.04000 – Timing of Action
Argument could be made that counseling memos are not an adverse action where counseling memos are not considered discipline under the parties collective bargaining agreement. Even assuming the counseling memo was an adverse action, the charge failed to demonstrate nexus.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
A letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of mail. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence that the letter was not received.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
To raise an issue for the first time on appeal is a violation of PERB Regulation section 32635(b) which requires a showing of good cause to include a new charge or new supporting evidence on appeal. Charging Party demonstrated good cause because the evidence being presented didn’t exist at the time of the dismissal.