1. Home
  2. Decisions
  3. Decision 2872S - Service Employees International Union Local 1000 (Williams)

Decision 2134H – Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)

LA-CE-1045-H

Decision Date: October 1, 2010

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description: The Board dismissed an unfair practice charge in which the charging party alleged the University violated HEERA when it denied a request to pursue a grievance regarding the contracting out of maintenance work.

Disposition: The Board held the charging party lacked standing to assert a claim that the University breached its duty to provide notice to SETC regarding the work.  In addition, the Board held that even if the charging party had standing to assert such a claim, the University did not have a duty to provide such notice.  Last, the Board held the charging party failed to state a prima facie case of interference.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 141

Decision Headnotes

400.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES
400.01000 – In General; Standards

In order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under EERA. When an interference charge is based on the employer’s failure to follow the parties’ MOU, the Board will dismiss the charge if the employer demonstrates that it did, in fact, follow the MOU.

401.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS
401.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case.

In order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference, the charging party must establish that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under EERA. When an interference charge is based on the employer’s failure to follow the parties’ MOU, the Board will dismiss the charge if the employer demonstrates that it did, in fact, follow the MOU.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.04000 – Amendments

PERB Regulation 32621 provides that a charging party may file an amended charge before the Board agent issues or refuses to issue a complaint. Therefore, when a charging party files an amended charge after the charge was dismissed by a Board agent, the amendment will be deemed as untimely and will not be subject to review on the merits.