Decision 2070H – Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
LA-CE-1039-H
Decision Date: October 15, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: CSUEU alleged that CSU: (1) unilaterally transferred bargaining unit work to nonunit employees and (2) retaliated against employee Rafael Lopez for using union representation by searching his personal vehicle.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the Board agent’s dismissal of the unilateral transfer of work allegation. The charge failed to establish that work was removed from bargaining unit members or that nonunit employees began performing work previously performed exclusively by unit members. The charge also failed to establish that any reallocation of bargaining unit work had a negotiable effect on unit members’ terms and conditions of employment. The Board reversed the dismissal of the retaliation allegation, finding that the charge stated a prima facie case based on the timing of the search, CSU’s failure to give Lopez a reason for the search, and department management’s anti-union statements.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 173
Decision Headnotes
503.01000 – In General
Search of employee’s personal vehicle by employer’s security officer was an adverse action because it could lead to discipline, criminal charges, or both.
503.15000 – Other
Search of employee’s personal vehicle by employer’s security officer was an adverse action because it could lead to discipline, criminal charges, or both.
504.04000 – Timing of Action
Five days between union steward’s complaint to management about employee’s work assignments and search of employee’s personal vehicle by employer’s security officer sufficient to establish timing factor.
504.07000 – No reason or Inconsistent Reasons Given; Shifting Justifications
Employer’s failure to give employee reason for search of employee’s personal vehicle during the search supports an inference of unlawful motivation.
504.12000 – Employer Statements or Conduct; Threats
Supervisor’s statements to union steward that he took union’s transfer of work complaint personally, the complaint could lead to unit members not being promoted and warning to steward that “it is not a good thing to be getting involved in these kind of topics” indicated union animus. Manager’s comment that he did not want the union business representative “around here” indicated union animus.
602.01000 – In General
No prima facie case of unilateral change when charge failed to establish that employer removed bargaining unit work from unit members or that nonunit employees began performing duties previously performed exclusively by unit members. Charge also failed to establish that any reallocation of bargaining unit work had a negotiable effect on unit members’ terms and conditions of employment.
602.05000 – Impact and Extent
No prima facie case of unilateral change when charge failed to establish that employer removed bargaining unit work from unit members or that nonunit employees began performing duties previously performed exclusively by unit members. Charge also failed to establish that any reallocation of bargaining unit work had a negotiable effect on unit members’ terms and conditions of employment.
1000.02147 – Transfer of Work Out of Unit
No prima facie case of unilateral change when charge failed to establish that employer removed bargaining unit work from unit members or that nonunit employees began performing duties previously performed exclusively by unit members. Charge also failed to establish that any reallocation of bargaining unit work had a negotiable effect on unit members’ terms and conditions of employment.