Decision 2118S – State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
SA-CE-1671-S
Decision Date: June 15, 2010
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board upheld a dismissal of an unfair practice charge that alleged the State of California (CDCR) retaliated against the charging party when it issued him a negative evaluation, and also interfered with the charging party’s rights under the Dills Act when the State gave him an employee assistance program (EAP) referral.
Disposition: With regard to the retaliation charge, the Board held the charging party failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case. With regard to the interference charge, the Board held the charging party failed to demonstrate how the referral to EAP interfered with the charging party’s rights. Therefore, the charging party failed to satisfy the burden of proof for both allegations.
Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 102
Decision Headnotes
300.01000 – In General
Although certain communications with an employer taken on behalf of unit employees may be considered protected activity, an employee’s communication with the employer is for his/her own benefit is not protected.
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
Although certain communications with an employer taken on behalf of unit employees may be considered protected activity, an employee’s communication with the employer is for his/her own benefit is not protected.
300.06000 – Demands for Change in Working Conditions
Although certain communications with an employer taken on behalf of unit employees may be considered protected activity, an employee’s communication with the employer is for his/her own benefit is not protected.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Although certain communications with an employer taken on behalf of unit employees may be considered protected activity, an employee’s communication with the employer is for his/her own benefit is not protected.
502.01000 – In General
Although certain communications with an employer taken on behalf of unit employees may be considered protected activity, an employee’s communication with the employer is for his/her own benefit is not protected.
503.01000 – In General
An overall positive performance evaluation that contains some written comments and constructive criticism does not transform an otherwise positive evaluation into an adverse action.
503.01000 – In General
A referral to an EAP program does not constitute adverse action when participation in the program is voluntary and all services provided are confidential.
503.03000 – Warning Letters, Reprimands, Evaluations
An overall positive performance evaluation that contains some written comments and constructive criticism does not transform an otherwise positive evaluation into an adverse action.
505.01000 – In General
An overall positive performance evaluation that contains some written comments and constructive criticism does not transform an otherwise positive evaluation into an adverse action.
505.01000 – In General
A referral to an EAP program does not constitute adverse action when participation in the program is voluntary and all services provided are confidential.