Decision 1983M – Menlo Park Fire Protection District

SF-CE-390-M

Decision Date: October 28, 2008

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 158

Decision Headnotes

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation

Reporting safety concerns to an exclusive representative constitutes protected activity. However, one of the key elements to finding protected conduct in such cases is the actual reporting of the safety concerns to the exclusive representative. Therefore, harboring safety concerns is insufficient, standing alone, to establish protected conduct.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.06000 – Demands for Change in Working Conditions

Reporting safety concerns to an exclusive representative constitutes protected activity. However, one of the key elements to finding protected conduct in such cases is the actual reporting of the safety concerns to the exclusive representative. Therefore, harboring safety concerns is insufficient, standing alone, to establish protected conduct.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.17000 – Other

Reporting safety concerns to an exclusive representative constitutes protected activity. However, one of the key elements to finding protected conduct in such cases is the actual reporting of the safety concerns to the exclusive representative. Therefore, harboring safety concerns is insufficient, standing alone, to establish protected conduct.

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

In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation under the MMBA, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. The unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because the facts alleged were insufficient to establish a nexus between the alleged adverse action and the employee’s protected conduct.


504.14000 – Other/In General

In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation under the MMBA, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. The unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because the facts alleged were insufficient to establish a nexus between the alleged adverse action and the employee’s protected conduct.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation under the MMBA, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. The unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because the facts alleged were insufficient to establish a nexus between the alleged adverse action and the employee’s protected conduct.