Decision 2057E – San Francisco Unified School District

SF-CE-2645-E

Decision Date: August 28, 2009

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 145

Decision Headnotes

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

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.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.01000 – In General

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.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.15000 – Other

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.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.04000 – Timing of Action

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.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.01000 – In General

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.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.06000 – Change in Past Practice

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.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02085 – Management Rights

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.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02159 – Workloads

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.