Decision 2199M – Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific (O'Keefe)
SF-CO-228-M
Decision Date: August 29, 2011
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged that the Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific retaliated against the charging party for having engaged in protected activities of filing a PERB charge and assisting a co-worker in prosecuting a PERB charge.
Disposition: The Board upheld the dismissal of the charge for failure to state a prima facie case of discrimination/retaliation, concluding that neither the employee organization’s decision not to pursue charging party’s grievance or its issuance to charging party of a letter of internal union reprimand constituted adverse action.
Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 39
Decision Headnotes
801.01000 – In General
Charge failed to establish prima facie case of discrimination/retaliation. Board will not intervene in disputes that involve only the internal union activities of an employee organization unless those activities substantially impact employer-employee relations. Under a retaliation analysis, charge adequately alleged the first two elements that charging party participated in protected activities of filing PERB charges and assisting in prosecution of a co-worker’s PERB charge and that the employee organization had knowledge of those activities. Charge failed to allege facts to establish that either the employee organization’s decision not to pursue charging party’s grievance or its issuance of a letter of reprimand to charging party had an adverse impact on employment for purposes of establishing the adverse action element of a retaliation case. Charge also failed to set forth any facts establishing unlawful motive or nexus.
801.05500 – Discrimination
Charge failed to establish prima facie case of discrimination/retaliation. Board will not intervene in disputes that involve only the internal union activities of an employee organization unless those activities substantially impact employer-employee relations. Under a retaliation analysis, charge adequately alleged the first two elements that charging party participated in protected activities of filing PERB charges and assisting in prosecution of a co-worker’s PERB charge and that the employee organization had knowledge of those activities. Charge failed to allege facts to establish that either the employee organization’s decision not to pursue charging party’s grievance or its issuance of a letter of reprimand to charging party had an adverse impact on employment for purposes of establishing the adverse action element of a retaliation case. Charge also failed to set forth any facts establishing unlawful motive or nexus.