Decision 1853H – Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C
LA-CE-895-H
Decision Date: August 29, 2006
Decision Type: PERB Decision
* * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C * * *
Description: The Board affirmed the dismissal of an unfair practice charge in which the employee alleged, among other things, that the employer retaliated against the employee for engaging in protected activities, denied him adequate union representation and unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment.
Disposition: The employee failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because he failed to prove a nexus existed between his protected activity and the alleged adverse action. In addition, the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful denial of union representation because the meetings in question were not investigatory in nature. Last, the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of unilateral change because the university was not obligated to negotiate work assignments reasonably contemplated within the scope of existing duties.
Perc Vol: 30
Perc Index: 155
Decision Headnotes
408.01000 – In General
* * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. * * *
An employee required to attend an investigatory interview with the employer is entitled to union representation where the employee has a reasonable basis to believe discipline may result from the meeting. In order to establish a violation of this right, the charging party must demonstrate: (a) the employee requested representation, (b) for an investigatory meeting, (c) which the employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action; and (d) the employer denied the request.
408.03000 – Investigatory Interviews
* * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. * * *
An employee required to attend an investigatory interview with the employer is entitled to union representation where the employee has a reasonable basis to believe discipline may result from the meeting. If the sole purpose of a meeting is to present a final disciplinary memo, the employee has no right to union representation.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
* * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. * * *
To demonstrate a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (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 employees because of the exercise of those rights. Thus, in order to establish a prima facie case, the charging party must demonstrate a “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct.
503.03000 – Warning Letters, Reprimands, Evaluations
* * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. * * *
Evidence of adverse action is required to support a claim of discrimination or reprisal. In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. The issuance of a written reprimand has been found to constitute an adverse action.
503.05000 – Transfer, Promotion, or Demotion; Work Assignments and Opportunities
* * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. * * *
Evidence of adverse action is required to support a claim of discrimination or reprisal. In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. An involuntary transfer to a position with less favorable working condition has been found to constitute an adverse action.
504.14000 – Other/In General
* * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. * * *
In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination, the charging party must demonstrate a “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct.
1000.02071 – Job Duties
* * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. * * *
The direction of work force and determination of what work is to be performed by employees is a managerial prerogative, at the core of managerial control, and not subject to bargaining. However, the employer’s discretion to allocate work duties applies only to those tasks that are reasonably understood to be among the duties of the classification as established by the job description.
1000.02085 – Management Rights
* * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. * * *
The direction of work force and determination of what work is to be performed by employees is a managerial prerogative, at the core of managerial control, and not subject to bargaining. However, the employer’s discretion to allocate work duties applies only to those tasks that are reasonably understood to be among the duties of the classification as established by the job description.