Decision 1980E – San Mateo County Community College District

SF-CE-2701-E

Decision Date: October 17, 2008

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 153

Decision Headnotes

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

Employee’s inclusion of a union representative in a meeting with his supervisor over performance issues and e-mails from a union representative to the employer on the employee’s behalf regarding cancellation of the employee’s teaching assignment were protected activities under EERA.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.17000 – Other

Employee’s inclusion of a union representative in a meeting with his supervisor over performance issues and e-mails from a union representative to the employer on the employee’s behalf regarding cancellation of the employee’s teaching assignment were protected activities under EERA.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.01000 – In General

Employer took adverse action by placing employee on involuntary paid administrative leave, sending employee to a fitness for duty evaluation, and canceling employee’s teaching assignment.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.05000 – Transfer, Promotion, or Demotion; Work Assignments and Opportunities

Cancellation of employee’s teaching assignment was adverse action because it resulted in loss of pay.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.14000 – Involuntary Leaves

Placing employee on involuntary paid administrative leave was an adverse action.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.15000 – Other

Sending employee to a fitness for duty evaluation was an adverse action.

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

Timing of employer’s action did not support an inference of unlawful motive when the adverse action of canceling the employee’s teaching assignment occurred before the employee’s protected activity of having a union representative inquire about the cancellation.


504.14000 – Other/In General

Even if four and one-half month lapse between employee’s protected activity and employer’s adverse action is sufficient to establish timing, the charge failed to allege additional facts showing the required nexus between the protected activity and the adverse action.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal

Under PERB Regulation 32635(b), the Board may not consider new allegations or supporting evidence raised for the first time on appeal unless the charging party establishes good cause. No good cause to consider new allegations raised on appeal when the information underlying the allegations could have been obtained through reasonable diligence prior to the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge. Allegations based on events that occurred after the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge may only be raised in a new unfair practice charge.