Decision 1980E – San Mateo County Community College District
SF-CE-2701-E
Decision Date: October 17, 2008
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Collins alleged that the District retaliated against him for using union representation in disputes with the employer by placing him on involuntary administrative leave, sending him to a fitness for duty evaluation, and canceling a teaching assignment.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal of the charge. The charge failed to allege facts establishing a nexus between the employee’s protected activity and the District’s adverse actions. The Board also found no good cause to consider supporting evidence and allegations raised for the first time on appeal.
Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 153
Decision Headnotes
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.
300.17000 – 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.
503.01000 – 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.
503.05000 – Transfer, Promotion, or Demotion; Work Assignments and Opportunities
Cancellation of employee’s teaching assignment was adverse action because it resulted in loss of pay.
503.14000 – Involuntary Leaves
Placing employee on involuntary paid administrative leave was an adverse action.
503.15000 – Other
Sending employee to a fitness for duty evaluation was an adverse action.
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.
1100.05000 – 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.