Decision 1995H – Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
SF-CE-753-H
Decision Date: December 19, 2008
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Charging Party alleged that the University laid off an employee in retaliation for his union activities.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal of the charge, finding that, while the decision maker had knowledge of the employee’s union activities, union animus held by the employee’s supervisors was not imputed to decision maker, and the layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 25
Decision Headnotes
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
University did not lay off employee in retaliation for union activities. While decision maker had knowledge of employee’s union activities, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, and layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.
503.07000 – Discharge; Layoffs; Constructive Discharge; Rejection During Probation
Employee was laid off when his position was eliminated as part of university-wide staff reductions. University did not lay off employee in retaliation for union activities. While decision maker had knowledge of employee’s union activities, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, and layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.
504.12000 – Employer Statements or Conduct; Threats
Unlawful animus may be imputed to high management officials where, even innocently, they rely on inaccurate and biased information of lower level officials. In this case, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, where decision maker had no knowledge of supervisors’ animus and never consulted them regarding layoff decision.
504.14000 – Other/In General
Unlawful animus may be imputed to high management officials where, even innocently, they rely on inaccurate and biased information of lower level officials. In this case, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, where decision maker had no knowledge of supervisors’ animus and never consulted them regarding layoff decision.
University did not lay off employee in retaliation for union activities. While decision maker had knowledge of employee’s union activities, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, and layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.
501.03000 – Knowledge of Protected Activity
University did not lay off employee in retaliation for union activities. While decision maker had knowledge of employee’s union activities, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, and layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.
505.13000 – Other
Layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.