Decision 2530E – Monterey Peninsula Unified School District

SF-CE-3002-E

Decision Date: June 19, 2017

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 42
Perc Index: 2

Decision Headnotes

200.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309)
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.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
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.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
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.

400.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES
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.

400.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES
400.01000 – In General; Standards

To be considered unlawful, a directive prohibiting employees from communicating with each other need not explicitly threaten discipline.

502.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; PERSONS PROTECTED
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.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
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.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; 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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

Wholly speculative allegations are insufficient to support issuance of a complaint.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
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.)