Decision 2021E – Alvord Unified School District

No interference where Charging Party fails to show facts demonstrating harm to employee rights. In the absence of facts showing the employer’s actions in any way inhibited, or would tend to inhibit, the exercise of protected activity, allegations regarding the change to a teacher’s class assignment schedule and/or failure to provide certain educational resources, were not sufficient to show harm to employee rights.

Unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case for retaliation because it failed to provide evidence demonstrating employer knowledge, failed to establish adverse employment action, and failed to provide evidence of nexus. Charging Party, a teacher, failed to provide evidence that a change in class teaching assignment and/or failure to provide certain educational resources, constituted an adverse impact on Charging Party’s employment. Additionally, the presence of a District supervisor at meetings where charging party engaged in protected activity was not sufficient to establish employer knowledge, where the supervisor was present in her capacity as a representative for the union and the charge failed to provide evidence to establish that the individual was an agent or representative of the District.

Where compensation and the number of classes taught remained the same, a change in a teacher’s class schedule and/or the failure of the District to provide teaching resources, is not sufficient to establish adverse action for the purpose of supporting a prima facie case for reprisal. Charging Party must provide facts showing that a reasonable person would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.

Where compensation and the number of classes taught remained the same, a change in a teacher’s class schedule and/or the failure of the District to provide teaching resources, is not sufficient to establish adverse action for the purpose of supporting a prima facie case for reprisal. Charging Party must provide facts showing that a reasonable person would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.

Unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case for retaliation because it failed to provide evidence demonstrating employer knowledge, failed to establish adverse employment action, and failed to provide evidence of nexus. Charging Party, a teacher, failed to provide evidence that a change in class teaching assignment and/or failure to provide certain educational resources, constituted an adverse impact on Charging Party’s employment. Additionally, the presence of a District supervisor at meetings where charging party engaged in protected activity was not sufficient to establish employer knowledge, where the supervisor was present in her capacity as a representative for the union and the charge failed to provide evidence to establish that the individual was an agent or representative of the District. In an unfair practice charge alleging interference, Charging Party has the burden of proving that the employer’s action harmed employee rights, constituting interference. In the absence of facts showing the employer’s actions in any way inhibited, or would tend to inhibit, the exercise of protected activity, allegations regarding the change to a teacher’s class assignment schedule and/or failure to provide certain educational resources, were not sufficient to show harm to employee rights. Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why these matters should be considered for the first time on appeal.

Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why these matters should be considered for the first time on appeal.

Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why these matters should be considered for the first time on appeal.

Unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case for retaliation because it failed to provide evidence demonstrating employer knowledge, failed to establish adverse employment action, and failed to provide evidence of nexus. Charging Party, a teacher, failed to provide evidence that a change in class teaching assignment and/or failure to provide certain educational resources, constituted an adverse impact on Charging Party’s employment. Additionally, the presence of a District supervisor at meetings where charging party engaged in protected activity was not sufficient to establish employer knowledge, where the supervisor was present in her capacity as a representative for the union and the charge failed to provide evidence to establish that the individual was an agent or representative of the District. In an unfair practice charge alleging interference, Charging Party has the burden of proving that the employer’s action harmed employee rights, constituting interference. In the absence of facts showing the employer’s actions in any way inhibited, or would tend to inhibit, the exercise of protected activity, allegations regarding the change to a teacher’s class assignment schedule and/or failure to provide certain educational resources, were not sufficient to show harm to employee rights. Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why these matters should be considered for the first time on appeal.

Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why these matters should be considered for the first time on appeal.

Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why these matters should be considered for the first time on appeal.

Unfair practice charge of reprisal failed to establish employer knowledge of protected activity. The presence of a District supervisor at meetings where charging party engaged in protected activity was not sufficient to establish employer knowledge, where the supervisor was present in her capacity as a representative for the union and the charge failed to provide evidence to establish that the individual was an agent or representative of the District.