Decision 2134H – Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
LA-CE-1045-H
Decision Date: October 1, 2010
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 141
Decision Headnotes
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.
401.01000 – 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.
1100.04000 – 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.