Decision 2174M – County of Contra Costa

SF-CE-670-M

Decision Date: March 25, 2011

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 35
Perc Index: 67

Decision Headnotes

501.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case

Charge failed to establish that decision to eliminate part-time public health nurse positions and lay off charging party was part of a “strategically orchestrated” plan to terminate charging party’s employment, where charge failed to establish that person or persons responsible for terminating interdepartmental contract and recommending budget cuts had any knowledge of charging party’s protected activity in filing grievances against her supervisor or acting as union steward. While it is conceivable that employees in the personnel department had knowledge of employee’s protected activities, charge failed to allege facts demonstrating any of the established “nexus” factors and therefore failed to alleged any facts that would support a finding that the decision to hire two full-time employees, the elimination of all part-time positions, or the denial of charging party’s request to fill in temporarily for another employee were motivated by employee’s protected activity.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.01000 – In General

Elimination of all part-time public health nurse positions and decision to layoff employee holding that position is an adverse action.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.07000 – Discharge; Layoffs; Constructive Discharge; Rejection During Probation

Charge failed to establish that decision to eliminate part-time public health nurse positions and lay off charging party was part of a “strategically orchestrated” plan to terminate charging party’s employment, where charge failed to establish that person or persons responsible for terminating interdepartmental contract and recommending budget cuts had any knowledge of charging party’s protected activity in filing grievances against her supervisor or acting as union steward. While it is conceivable that employees in the personnel department had knowledge of employee’s protected activities, charge failed to allege facts demonstrating any of the established “nexus” factors and therefore failed to alleged any facts that would support a finding that the decision to hire two full-time employees, the elimination of all part-time positions, or the denial of charging party’s request to fill in temporarily for another employee were motivated by employee’s protected activity.


504.14000 – Other/In General

Charge failed to establish that decision to eliminate part-time public health nurse positions and lay off charging party was part of a “strategically orchestrated” plan to terminate charging party’s employment, where charge failed to establish that person or persons responsible for terminating interdepartmental contract and recommending budget cuts had any knowledge of charging party’s protected activity in filing grievances against her supervisor or acting as union steward. While it is conceivable that employees in the personnel department had knowledge of employee’s protected activities, charge failed to allege facts demonstrating any of the established “nexus” factors and therefore failed to alleged any facts that would support a finding that the decision to hire two full-time employees, the elimination of all part-time positions, or the denial of charging party’s request to fill in temporarily for another employee were motivated by employee’s protected activity.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal

PERB Regulation 32635(b) prohibits a charging party from submitting new allegations and new supporting evidence on appeal absent good cause. In the absence of a showing as to why new allegations and evidence could not have been submitted previously to the Board agent, and because the new allegations and evidence predate the dismissal letter and therefore were known to charging party, Board does not find good cause to consider them on appeal.

1109.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL
1109.01000 – In General

PERB Regulation 32635(b) prohibits a charging party from submitting new allegations and new supporting evidence on appeal absent good cause. In the absence of a showing as to why new allegations and evidence could not have been submitted previously to the Board agent, and because the new allegations and evidence predate the dismissal letter and therefore were known to charging party, Board does not find good cause to consider them on appeal. Where appeal states “Please consider my appeal for layoff by displacement as retaliatory due to my Union protected activities” but does not identify the specific issues to which the appeal is taken or the page or part of the Board agent’s dismissal appealed or state the grounds for appeal, the appeal fails to comply with the requirements set forth in PERB Regulation 32635(a).