Decision 2058M – San Bernardino County Public Defender
LA-CE-390-M
Decision Date: September 3, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board upheld the dismissal of an unfair practice charge in which the charging party claimed the County violated the MMBA by denying her the right to union representation and retaliated against her by placing her on administrative leave.
Disposition: The Board held that the charging party failed to establish that she was either wrongfully denied union representation or that she was retaliated against for her protected conduct.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 148
Decision Headnotes
408.01000 – In General
An employee who is required to attend an investigatory interview is entitled to union representation if the employee has a reasonable basis to believe discipline may result from the meeting. In order to establish a violation of this right, the charging party must demonstrate: (a) the employee requested representation; (b) for an investigatory meeting; (c) which the employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action; and (d) the employer denied the request.
408.03000 – Investigatory Interviews
In order to establish a violation of a charging party’s right to union representation, the charging party must establish, among other things, that the meeting for which representation was requested was investigatory in nature.
504.14000 – Other/In General
Timing alone is insufficient to establish a nexus between protected activity and adverse action. Though the charge established timing, it failed to allege additional facts showing the required nexus.