Decision 2222M – City and County of San Francisco
Decision Date: November 23, 2011
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged that the employer discriminated against Jaroslawsky based on her age and based on her protected activity and denied her right to union representation under Weingarten.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal of an unfair practice charge for failure to state a prima facie case that the employer violated MMBA by: interfering with her Weingarten right to representation; and retaliating against her for engaging in protected activity. The Board dismissed alleged age discrimination for lack of jurisdiction. The Board refused to consider new matters presented on appeal, as charging party provided no reasons why those matters could not have been presented in the original or amended charge.
Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 89
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes
PERB’s jurisdiction does not include, among other things, enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the U.S. Constitution, the Whistleblower Protection Reporting Act, laws governing improper government activity, laws governing sexual harassment, laws governing defamation, or laws governing the unemployment insurance process.
408.01000 – In General
If the purpose of an employer-employee meeting is solely to present to the employee a memo conveying the employer’s final determination on discipline, and is not investigatory and not otherwise extraordinary, the employee has no right to union representation at the meeting.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
To demonstrate that an employer discriminated or retaliated against an employee in violation of MMBA section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32603(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights.
1109.01000 – In General
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b), no good cause found to consider new allegations on appeal, where the dates of all the incidents alleged for the first time on appeal predate the filing of the charge and the appeal provides no reason why these new allegations could not have been alleged in the original charge or in an amended charge.