Decision 2123S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
SA-CE-1803-S
Decision Date: July 28, 2010
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: UAPD alleged that the State discriminated against its members for opposing the Governor’s campaigns, and interfered with employee rights, by furloughing bargaining unit members but not furloughing contract physicians.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge. The Board found the charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination because it did not allege any specific protected activity by UAPD bargaining unit members and the furloughs were not imposed close in time to the alleged protected activity. The Board further found the charge failed to state a prima facie case of interference because it alleged no facts showing the furloughs would tend to encourage State employee physicians to become contract physicians.
Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 117
Decision Headnotes
300.01000 – In General
The charge and supporting documents do not indicate that union members engaged in any specific protected activity other than their union membership. Allegations that public employee unions generally opposed the Governor’s reelection and initiative campaigns fails to establish that union engaged in any identifiable protected activity or that the state employer had knowledge of any such activity by the union. Charging party was one of many public sector labor organizations engaging in such activity.
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
The charge and supporting documents do not indicate that union members engaged in any specific protected activity other than their union membership. Allegations that public employee unions generally opposed the Governor’s reelection and initiative campaigns fails to establish that union engaged in any identifiable protected activity or that the state employer had knowledge of any such activity by the union. Charging party was one of many public sector labor organizations engaging in such activity.
400.01000 – In General; Standards
Assertion that physicians would prefer to be utilized as non-furloughed contractors rather than furloughed employees is insufficient to establish that the State’s decision to furlough its employees has interfered with the exercise of any protected activities.
503.01000 – In General
The imposition of furloughs was a form of involuntary leave resulting in a reduction in hours and therefore an adverse action.
503.14000 – Involuntary Leaves
The imposition of furloughs was a form of involuntary leave resulting in a reduction in hours and therefore an adverse action.
504.04000 – Timing of Action
Charge failed to establish nexus between union’s opposition to Governor’s reelection and initiative campaigns the issuance of an Executive Order directing furloughs more than two years later. Any connection between alleged protected activity and adverse action is simply too attenuated to establish nexus under the Novato standard.