Decision 2021E – Alvord Unified School District

LA-CE-5158-E

Decision Date: April 30, 2009

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 76

Decision Headnotes

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

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.

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

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.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.01000 – In General

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.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.05000 – Transfer, Promotion, or Demotion; Work Assignments and Opportunities

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.

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

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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.04000 – Amendments

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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; 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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

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.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

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.

1109.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL
1109.01000 – In General

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.

1400.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; AGENCY
1400.01000 – In General

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.