Decision 2057E – San Francisco Unified School District

Charge alleging District retaliated against teacher for complaining to union and contacting other teachers about issuance of “Principal’s Expectations” memorandum by sending disparaging emails failed to establish that principal or District knew about employee’s protected activities, or that statements in emails had any adverse impact on employee’s employment. In addition, charge failed to establish whether protected activity occurred before or after email communications. Therefore, charge failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.

Charging party failed to establish that vague statements in emails referring to a union member as a “bully” had an adverse impact on employee’s employment. In the absence of facts showing impact on employment, bare allegation that the employer made disparaging remarks about an employee does not meet the standard under Novato and Palo Verde.

Charging party failed to establish that vague statements in emails referring to a union member as a “bully” had an adverse impact on employee’s employment. In the absence of facts showing impact on employment, bare allegation that the employer made disparaging remarks about an employee does not meet the standard under Novato and Palo Verde.

Charge alleging that principal sent disparaging email in retaliation for employee having engaged in protected activity by informing union of principal’s issuance of “Principal’s Expectations” memorandum and telling faculty union would protest memorandum failed to establish that protected activity occurred prior to email communications. Thus, timing element of nexus was not established.

Charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to show that issuance of a “Principal’s Expectations” memorandum constituted a unilateral change in the working conditions of teachers.

Charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the District breached a written agreement or past practice when it issued a “Principal’s Expectations” memorandum setting forth principal’s expectations concerning written lesson plans, student progress reports, a classroom newspaper, reporting of student absences, the teaching or celebrating of American cultural mores, and grade-level team accountability.

The assignment of work is a nonnegotiable management prerogative if the newly assigned work is reasonably related to existing duties performed by employees. If the changes are reasonably comprehended within the existing job duties, an assignment of such duties, even if never performed before, is not a violation. Charge failed to allege what teachers’ duties were before principal issued memorandum setting forth expectations concerning written lesson plans, student progress reports, a classroom newspaper, reporting of student absences, the teaching or celebrating of American cultural mores, and grade-level team accountability, and therefore failed to establish that newly assigned duties fell within the scope of representation because they were not reasonably comprehended within the teachers’ existing duties.

Charge failed to allege what teachers’ duties were before principal issued memorandum setting forth expectations concerning written lesson plans, student progress reports, a classroom newspaper, reporting of student absences, the teaching or celebrating of American cultural mores, and grade-level team accountability, and therefore failed to establish that newly assigned duties fell within the scope of representation because they were not reasonably comprehended within the teachers’ existing duties.