PERB Upholds Union Steward’s Right To Represent Members Without Being Disciplined
In a victory for union steward rights, PERB held that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (“Act”) by disciplining a registered nurse, Isabel Guerra (“Guerra”), for her conduct undertaken as a union job steward. Guerra was asked by two of her co-workers to represent them at separate meetings with two supervisors. At one meeting, Guerra had requested that the employee be allowed to meet with only one of the two supervisors but was refused. After the meeting, Guerra reminded the employee to file a complaint with the EEOC.
At the second meeting, Guerra twice asked a question to one of the supervisors, and once gestured her hand towards a supervisor indicating that she was speaking to the other supervisor. Based on Guerra’s speech and action during these meetings, Guerra’s supervisor issued her a Letter of Instruction (“LOI”) charging her with insubordination, discourteous treatment of employees and willful disobedience, and threatened to exclude and replace Guerra as steward in future employee disciplinary meetings if her conduct were to recur.
PERB found that that CDCR retaliated against Guerra for engaging in the protected activity of serving a union steward. Guerra’s speech did not cause substantial disruption or material interference with CDCR’s operations, and Guerra only interrupted the supervisor’s presentation of the LOI minimally. PERB rejected CDCR’s defense that it would have disciplined Guerra even if she had not acted as job steward, since the LOI specifically based the discipline on her actions “as a representative.”
PERB recognized that while representatives of both unions and employers may resort occasionally during representational meetings to intemperate speech or less than civil conduct, but that party representatives are afforded significant latitude in their representational speech and conduct, which serves the ultimate goal of accommodating divergent interests and resolving conflicts. Consequently stewards must be free to speak and act for the union, consistent with good faith and free of employer interference, restraint or coercion. A supervisor’s “personal pique” over perceived disrespect is not sufficient basis to find that Guerra’s speech and gestures, undertaken in a representational capacity on behalf of her union, exceeded the bounds of statutory protection.
Author: Russell Naymark
