Decision 1920M – Jurupa Community Services District

An employee’s termination is motivated by anti-union animus, when his supervisor attempted to talk him out of filing the grievance, suggesting that filing the grievance would be a waste of his time, found him "insubordinate" and stated that he had a "bad attitude" when he refused to follow his "advice" about not filing the grievance. The District’s argument that a supervisor’s anti-union animus should not be attributed to the District was rejected where the District relied on and accepted that supervisor’s recommendation which led to termination of the employee.

An employee’s termination is motivated by anti-union animus, when his supervisor attempted to talk him out of filing the grievance, suggesting that filing the grievance would be a waste of his time, found him "insubordinate" and stated that he had a "bad attitude" when he refused to follow his "advice" about not filing the grievance.

An employee’s termination is motivated by anti-union animus, when his supervisor attempted to talk him out of filing the grievance, suggesting that filing the grievance would be a waste of his time, found him "insubordinate" and stated that he had a "bad attitude" when he refused to follow his "advice" about not filing the grievance.

The District did not sustain its burden of showing that it would have discharged an employee in the absence of his filing a grievance, when it disciplined, but did not discharge another employee who participated in a physical altercation.

An employee spoke with his supervisor about filing a grievance and the decision to terminate his employment was made less than two months later. Thus, timing is a factor in finding a nexus between the adverse action and the protected conduct.

In determining that there was an unlawful motive for an employee’s termination, the Board considered a manager’s contradictory testimony about the reason for the termination. She claimed that the employee’s history of retaliatory and aggressive behavior led her to her decision to terminate him. However, she also testified that her Determination letter, which does not allege any physical abuse by the employee, contains all the reasons for his termination.

A supervisor accused an employee of being "insubordinate" and having a "bad attitude" when the employee insisted on filing a grievance. These phrases have been seen as evidence of an employer's anti-union animus and as pretext for its anti-union actions.

The District did not sustain its burden of showing that it would have discharged an employee in the absence of his filing a grievance, when it disciplined, but did not discharge another employee who participated in a physical altercation. An employee’s door slamming, making derogatory comments towards co-workers, not following the District’s sick leave policy, filing a travel grievance, making a false accusation, and getting into a physical altercation were all cited by the District as reasons for his termination. The Board finds these reasons, however, to be pretext, some exaggerated, some untrue, some pulled out of a hat, some based solely on hearsay, and all cited in an attempt to mask the true motivation for the discharge, i.e., the employee’s filing a grievance. The District’s argument that a supervisor’s anti-union animus should not be attributed to the District was rejected where the District relied on and accepted that supervisor’s recommendation which led to termination of the employee.

An employee’s door slamming, making derogatory comments towards co-workers, not following the District’s sick leave policy, filing a travel grievance, making a false accusation, and getting into a physical altercation were all cited by the District as reasons for his termination. The Board finds these reasons, however, to be pretext, some exaggerated, some untrue, some pulled out of a hat, some based solely on hearsay, and all cited in an attempt to mask the true motivation for the discharge, i.e., the employee’s filing a grievance.

An employee’s door slamming, making derogatory comments towards co-workers, not following the District’s sick leave policy, filing a travel grievance, making a false accusation, and getting into a physical altercation were all cited by the District as reasons for his termination. The Board finds these reasons, however, to be pretext, some exaggerated, some untrue, some pulled out of a hat, some based solely on hearsay, and all cited in an attempt to mask the true motivation for the discharge, i.e., the employee’s filing a grievance.