Decision 1986E – Rio School District

LA-CE-5090-E

Decision Date: November 21, 2008

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 8

Decision Headnotes

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.15000 – Speech

Employee organization president’s accusations at school board meeting that school administrators were not properly evaluating teachers constituted protected activity because accusations related to legitimate matters of concern about employer-employee relations and were not so disruptive as to lose protection.

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

Reprimand of employee organization president for failure to provide district superintendent with information to support president’s allegations that school district improperly evaluated particular teachers did not interfere with president’s or employee organization’s protected rights because discipline for disobeying a direct order would not tend to chill president’s right to speak on issues of employer-employee relations.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.03000 – Warning Letters, Reprimands, Evaluations

Letter from district superintendent to employee organization president requesting information relevant to president’s allegations that district administrators improperly evaluated particular teachers was not adverse action because it did not threaten future discipline. Reprimand for failure to provide the requested information was an adverse action.

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

Timing of adverse action, one week after employee engaged in protected activity, supports an inference of unlawful motive.


504.14000 – Other/In General

Timing alone is insufficient to establish a nexus between protected activity and adverse action. Though the charge established timing, it failed to allege additional facts showing the required nexus.

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

Untimely or unfounded declaration of impasse is not a per se violation of the duty to bargain. Under totality of conduct test, employer’s declaration of impasse on successor collective bargaining agreement, even though the parties had not bargained over the employer’s initial proposal, did not indicate bad faith because the parties were already at impasse over salary and health benefits in re-opener negotiations and declaration was intended to move negotiations forward by invoking EERA impasse procedures. Even if impasse declaration indicated bad faith, charge failed to allege other indicators of bad faith bargaining.

605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.05000 – Other

Untimely or unfounded declaration of impasse is not a per se violation of the duty to bargain.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.15000 – Other

Employer’s declaration of impasse on successor collective bargaining agreement, even though the parties had not bargained over the employer’s initial proposal, did not indicate bad faith because the parties were already at impasse over salary and health benefits in re-opener negotiations and declaration was intended to move negotiations forward by invoking EERA impasse procedures. Even if impasse declaration indicated bad faith, charge failed to allege other indicators of bad faith bargaining.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.02000 – Declaration/Determination of Impasse

Employer’s failure to withdraw its request that PERB certify impasse after employee organization stated in writing that it wished to negotiate over successor collective bargaining agreement did not show the employer failed to participate in impasse procedures in good faith. Employer’s conduct did not indicate it lacked subjective intent to reach agreement but instead showed that it wanted to proceed with statutory impasse procedures as soon as possible.