Union’s claimed violations of §§19 (B), (C), (F) and (G) dismissed on Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

This case was opened on 11/3/2014 alleging that termination of an employee union representative was retaliation, interference with the union and coercion in violation of PEBA § 19(A); § 19(B); § 19(C); and a violation of contract or PEBA rights in violation of § 19(G) and § 19(H). The Hearing Officer granted Summary Judgment in favor of the Employer on 2/6/2015 holding that: 

• The Union did not demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing on the question whether any of its employee’s union activities, taken alone or in the aggregate, created anti-union animus, nor that any anti-union animus was a motivating factor in the decision not to renew her employment contract. See § 19(D). 
• The Union did not demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing on the question whether the employee was treated differently than any other employee based on her union activities. See § 19(B)(3). 
• The Union did not demonstrate a material issue of fact that would require an evidentiary concerning whether the District interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee in the exercise of a right guaranteed pursuant to the PEBA § 19(B). 
• The undisputed evidence reflects significant departures by the employee from the District’s policies coupled with marginal performance followed by forewarning and progressive discipline. That evidence has not been refuted and Complainant may not rest on the mere allegations of its complaint in response to a Summary Judgment motion. 
• Because alleged violation of PEBA § 5 (Interference and Coercion) were not supported, the union’s § 19(G) claims were without a basis in any section of PEBA other than § 19. Accordingly, to avoid repetitive and duplicative liability, that claim was dismissed. 
• The undisputed evidence demonstrated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employee’s termination that satisfy the contractual requirements at issue. Complainant may not rest on the mere allegations of its complaint in response to a Summary Judgment motion and so, the Union’s claim for violation of § 19(H) was dismissed. 

Case deferred to Arbitration.

Case opened on 5/1/2014 alleging failure to provide information necessary for the grievance procedure. 

• The Director entered a Voluntary Dismissal after Complainant withdrew the PPC as part of a settlement agreement reviewed and approved on 7/14/2014.