Decision 2066M – Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Decision Date: September 29, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Jones-Boyce alleged that the District placed her on paid administrative leave and later terminated her employment and health benefits because she exercised rights under the MMBA.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge. The Board found the charge failed to establish the placement on paid administrative leave was an adverse action because Jones-Boyce was on unpaid leave at the time of the placement. The Board further found that termination of Jones-Boyce’s employment and health benefits were not adverse because the actions resulted from a signed settlement agreement between Jones-Boyce and the District. The Board also found no indication of unlawful motive because the alleged adverse actions were taken before Jones-Boyce’s protected conduct.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 165
503.01000 – In General
Placement of employee on paid administrative leave was not an adverse action when the employee was on unpaid leave status at the time she was placed on paid leave. Termination of employment and health benefits were not adverse actions because they were taken pursuant to a signed settlement agreement between the employee and the employer.
503.07000 – Discharge; Layoffs; Constructive Discharge; Rejection During Probation
Termination of employment and health benefits were not adverse actions because they were taken pursuant to a signed settlement agreement between the employee and the employer.
503.14000 – Involuntary Leaves
Placement of employee on paid administrative leave was not an adverse action when the employee was on unpaid leave status at the time she was placed on paid leave.
504.04000 – Timing of Action
Timing factor not established when two adverse actions occurred before employee filed unfair practice charge and the third adverse action, which occurred after the charge was filed, was a direct result of employee’s resignation prior to filing the charge.
505.12000 – Lack of Knowledge of Protected Activity
PERB will not impute knowledge of employee’s protected activity to the decision maker when the protected activity was known only to employees who played no role in the adverse action. Supervisor who met with employee and union representative about employee’s use of leave had no role in subsequent decision to terminate employee’s employment and health benefits. Thus, supervisor’s knowledge of employee’s protected activity could not be imputed to the decision maker.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
An addendum to an appeal filed after the expiration of the 20-day appeal period is untimely unless good cause is shown for the late filing pursuant to PERB Regulation 32136. No good cause to excuse late filing because nothing in addendum or circumstances surrounding its filing indicated charging party attempted to file the addendum within the 20-day period but was prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond charging party’s control.