Decision 2126E – Grossmont Union High School District
Decision Date: August 13, 2010
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The complaint alleged the District rejected Meredith on probation because he wrote a letter to the principal and asked for Union representation during a meeting with management.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal of the complaint. The Board held that Meredith failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because his own allegations showed that the District had decided to reject him on probation before he engaged in protected activity.
Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 121
300.01000 – In General
School district employee engaged in protected activity by sending a letter to the principal accusing the principal of failing to comply with the applicable collective bargaining agreement and requesting union representation during a meeting with district management.
504.04000 – Timing of Action
Although employer rejected employee on probation shortly after he engaged in protected activities, timing of rejection did not support an inference of unlawful motive when the charge established that the employer had decided to reject the employee on probation before the protected activities occurred.
1405.01000 – In General
A dismissal of an unfair practice charge based solely on a Board agent’s charge investigation does not have collateral estoppel effect in later PERB proceedings. City of Porterville (2007) PERB Decision No. 1905-M overruled in part.
1405.02000 – Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
A dismissal of an unfair practice charge based solely on a Board agent’s charge investigation does not have collateral estoppel effect in later PERB proceedings. Because the purpose of the investigation is not to decide the merits of a case but merely to determine whether a prima facie case is established, the investigation does not satisfy the “actually litigated” requirement for collateral estoppel. City of Porterville (2007) PERB Decision No. 1905-M overruled in part.