Decision 2024S – State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
SA-CE-1696-S
Decision Date: May 13, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board affirmed the dismissal of an unfair practice charge in which the Charging Party alleged the employer violated the Dills Act when a manager distributed a document via e-mail to all the youth correctional officers at the Ventura Youth Correctional Facility. The Charging Party claimed this conduct constituted retaliation and interference in violation of the Dills Act.
Disposition: The Board held that the Charging Party failed to state a prima facie case of retaliation under the Dills Act because it failed to plead sufficient facts to establish both an adverse action and a nexus between the adverse action and the protected conduct. The Board also held that the Charging Party failed to state a prima facie case of interference under the Dills Act because it failed to plead sufficient facts to establish that the issuance of the e-mail tended to or did result in some harm to employees’ rights under the Dills Act.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 86
Decision Headnotes
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
For the purposes of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the Dills Act, the distribution of information to bargaining unit members that impacts the employer-employee relationship constitutes protected conduct.
300.06000 – Demands for Change in Working Conditions
For the purposes of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the Dills Act, the distribution of information to bargaining unit members that impacts the employer-employee relationship constitutes protected conduct.
300.17000 – Other
For the purposes of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the Dills Act, the distribution of information to bargaining unit members that impacts the employer-employee relationship constitutes protected conduct.
409.06000 – Free Speech
An employer may communicate with its employees about labor relations matters provided the communication does not contain a promise of benefit or a threat of reprisal or force. The Board uses an objective standard when assessing employer communication and considers the overall context to determine if the statements have a coercive meaning.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
To demonstrate a violation of Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained, or coerced the employees because of the exercise of those rights.
503.01000 – In General
Evidence of adverse action is also required to support a claim of discrimination or reprisal. In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee found the employer's action to be adverse, but whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee's employment.