Decision 2126E – Grossmont Union High School District

LA-CE-5133-E

Decision Date: August 13, 2010

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 121

Decision Headnotes

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
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.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
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.

1405.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA
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.

1405.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA
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.