Decision 1953M – Carmichael Recreation and Park District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652

SA-CE-370-MSA-CE-379-M

Decision Date: April 17, 2008

Decision Type: PERB Decision

 * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 * * *

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 69

Decision Headnotes

400.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES
400.01000 – In General; Standards

* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *

Charging Party failed to meet its burden of proving that a cartoon shown to employees harmed their rights, constituting unlawful interference, as the Board found the two employees’ beliefs that the cartoon was threatening and retaliatory were unreasonable.

405.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES
405.01000 – In General

* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *

Charging Party failed to meet its burden of proving that a cartoon shown to employees harmed their rights, constituting unlawful interference, as the Board found the two employees’ beliefs that the cartoon was threatening and retaliatory were unreasonable.

405.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES
405.02000 – Express or Implied Threats

* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *

Charging Party failed to meet its burden of proving that a cartoon shown to employees harmed their rights, constituting unlawful interference, as the Board found the two employees’ beliefs that the cartoon was threatening and retaliatory were unreasonable.

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

* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *

Charging Party failed to prove that a park district discriminated against two employees because of their protected activity where the only factor raising an inference of unlawful animus is timing.

501.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION
501.02000 – Burden of Proof; Evidence

* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *

Charging Party failed to prove that a park district discriminated against two employees because of their protected activity where the only factor raising an inference of unlawful animus is timing.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.04000 – Timing of Action

* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *

Charging Party failed to prove that a park district discriminated against two employees because of their protected activity where the only factor raising an inference of unlawful animus is timing.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.01000 – Prior Employer Unfair Practices; Prior History of Confrontation/Strife/Discord

* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *

Charging Party failed to prove that a park district discriminated against two employees because of their protected activity where the only factor raising an inference of unlawful animus is timing.

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

* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, where the Board held there is no categorical rule barring a request for information related to a noncontractual forum; information relevant to challenging discipline of a bargaining unit member is presumptively relevant. * * *

Charging party requested copies of an employee’s medical documentation solely to prepare for a Skelly hearing, an extra-contractual forum. Therefore, the Board found that a union failed to meet its burden of showing the information it sought was relevant and necessary to the union's representational duties.