Decision 2530E – Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
SF-CE-3002-E
Decision Date: June 19, 2017
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Office of the General Counsel dismissed an unfair practice charge alleging that the District retaliated against a former employee by conspiring with other employers or prospective employers to deny charging party future employment with other districts.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal. The Board agreed with the Office of the General Counsel that an individual has standing to file a charge against a former employer for allegedly blacklisting him, but that the charge did not state a prima facie case that the respondent conspired with other employers.
Perc Vol: 42
Perc Index: 2
Decision Headnotes
200.01000 – In General
An employee has standing to file an unfair practice charge against a former employer to allege that such employer interfered with the employee’s attempt to obtain and/or retain subsequent employment.
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
Charging party’s court case challenging his for-cause termination as a certificated employee was not protected as the logical continuation of group activity or as self-representation.
300.16000 – Appeals to Other Agencies/Filing of Court Actions
Charging party’s court case challenging his for-cause termination as a certificated employee was not protected as the logical continuation of group activity or as self-representation.
400.01000 – In General; Standards
Respondent’s attorney’s statement that charging party would not be permitted to contact current or former employees of respondent as potential witnesses in an administrative hearing before the Commission on Teacher Credentialing was not an unlawful directive to an employee, but was more akin to a communication between opposing counsel.
400.01000 – In General; Standards
To be considered unlawful, a directive prohibiting employees from communicating with each other need not explicitly threaten discipline.
502.01000 – In General
An employee has standing to file an unfair practice charge against a former employer to allege that such employer interfered with the employee’s attempt to obtain and/or retain subsequent employment.
503.06000 – Blacklisting; Hire; Refusal to Recommend
EERA’s prohibition against interference, discrimination and reprisals logically encompasses a former employer’s efforts to prevent former employees from obtaining subsequent work because of their protected activity while employed by the former employer. A charging party may establish a prima facie violation on the basis of blacklisting by showing that a respondent interfered with the employment process by causing or attempting to cause a potential employer to refuse to hire the applicant because of the applicant’s union activities or other conduct protected by EERA.
503.06000 – Blacklisting; Hire; Refusal to Recommend
Allegation that respondent insisted on providing employment verification information directly to another employer is insufficient to state a prima facie case of blacklisting.
1100.03000 – Standing
An employee has standing to file an unfair practice charge against a former employer to allege that such employer interfered with the employee’s attempt to obtain and/or retain subsequent employment.
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
The Board will find good cause for charging party to present new supporting evidence on appeal when the information provided could not have been obtained through reasonable diligence prior to the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge.
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
The Board agent’s failure to specifically address all of the information included in an amended charge is only grounds for reversal if the information assists the charging party in establishing a prima facie case.
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
Wholly speculative allegations are insufficient to support issuance of a complaint.
1100.11000 – Response to Charge
Verification in support of respondent’s position statement, signed and dated one day before the date of the position statement, was in compliance with PERB Regulations.
1100.11000 – Response to Charge
A respondent’s failure to specifically deny an allegation in its response to the charge is not an admission of the truth of the allegation. (Dismissal, p. 10.)