Rainbow Municipal Water District (PERB 1676M)

2 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

JAN GODDARD,
Charging Party, Case No. LA-CE-120-M

Vv. PERB Decision No. 1676-M

RAINBOW MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, August 19, 2004

Respondent.

Appearances: City Employees Association by David Cochran for Jan Goddard; Foley &
Lardner by Lynn R. Goodfellow, Attorney, for Rainbow Municipal Water District.

. Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION

WHITEHEAD, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by the Rainbow Municipal Water District (District) of an
administrative law judge’s (ALJ) proposed decision (attached). The unfair practice charge
alleged that the District violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)' by discharging Jan
Goddard (Goddard) for telling fellow employees that the District’s general manager had
offered promotional opportunities to another employee if that employee would help prevent the
union from affiliating with a certain labor consulting firm. A complaint was issued by the
Board, which alleged that this conduct constituted a violation of MMBA sections 3506 and

3509(b), and PERB Regulation 32603(a)?

‘MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500, et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.

*PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001, et seq.

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the hearing
transcript, the exhibits, the ALJ's proposed decision, the District's exceptions, and Goddard's
response to the District's exceptions. The Board finds the ALJ' s proposed decision to be
without prejudicial error and adopts it as a decision of the Board itself.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this
case, it is found that the Rainbow Municipal Water District (District) violated the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code sections 3506 and 3509(b), and PERB
Regulation 32603(a).
Pursuant to MMBA section 3509(b), it is hereby ORDERED that the District, its
administrators and representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Discriminating against employees because of their exercise of the right to
engage in activities protected by the MMBA.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Within ten (10) workdays after service of a final decision in this matter,
make Goddard whole for any losses he suffered by: removing from District records all
reference to his discharge on February 13, 2003; offering him reinstatement to the position of
Value Maintenance Technician I, or if that position no longer exists then to an equivalent
position, provided he receives clearance from the Public Employment Retirement System to
accept a full-time position; and paying him back pay based on wages set for Value
Maintenance Technician I, with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum.
2

2. 	Within ten (10) workdays after service of a final decision in this matter,
post copies of the Notice to Employees attached hereto as an Appendix, signed by an
authorized agent of the District, at all work locations where notices to employees are
customarily posted. 	Such posting shall be maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive
workdays. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size,
altered, defaced or covered with any other material;
3. 	Within ten (10) workdays following the date this decision is no longer
subject to appeal, post at all work locations where notices are customa:t;ily posted, copies of the
notice attached hereto as an Appendix.
4. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the Sacramento Regional Director of the Public Employment Relations Board in
accordance with the director's instructions. Continue to report, in writing, to the regional
director thereafter as directed. All reports to the regional director shall be concurrently served
on Jan Goddard.
It is further Ordered that the administrative law judge's proposed decision in Case No.
LA-CE-120-M is hereby AFFIRMED.
Chairman Duncan and Member Neima joined in this Decision.
3

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. LA-CE-120-M, Jan Goddard v. Rainbow
Municipal Water District, in which all parties had the right to participate, it has been found that
the Rainbow Municipal Water District (District) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
(MMBA), Government Code sections 3506 and 3509(b), and PERB Regulation 32603(a) by
discharging Jan Goddard (Goddard) because of his exercise of protected rights.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Discriminating against employees because of their exercise of the right to
engage in activities protected by the MMBA.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
Make Goddard whole for any losses he suffered by: removing from District
records all reference to his discharge on February 13, 2003; offering him reinstatement to the
position of Value Maintenance Technician I, or if that position no longer exists then to an
equivalent position, provided he receives clearance from the Public Employment Retirement
System to accept a full-time position; and paying him back pay based on wages set for Value
Maintenance Technician I, with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum.
Dated: 	RAINBOW MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
---------
By: --------------
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY •
(30) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
JAN GODDARD,
Charging Party,
V.
RAINBOW MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,
Respondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. LA-CE-120-M
PROPOSED DECISION
(12/16/03)
Appearances: 	City Employees Associates by David Cochran, Attorney, for Jan Goddard;
Foley & Lardner by Lynn Goodfellow, Attorney, for Rainbow Municipal Water District.
Before Ann L. Weinman, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A former employee of a public agency claims that he was terminated from employment
because of his protected activities. On March 13, 2003,1 Jan Goddard (Goddard) filed an
unfair practice charge against the Rainbow Municipal Water District (District). The charge
alleges Goddard was discharged for telling fellow employees that the District's general
manager had offered promotional opportunities to another employee if that employee would
help to prevent the union from affiliating with a certain labor consulting firm.
On April 3, the general counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or
Board) issued a complaint alleging that by the above conduct, the District violated the Meyers-
1 All dates refer to the year 2003 unless otherwise specified.

Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) section 3506 and committed an unfair practice under section
3509(b).2
Informal conferences were held on May 28, June 24 and July 7, 2003, but the matter
was not resolved. Formal hearing was held before the undersigned on September 23, 2003, at
the Los Angeles offices of PERB. After the filing of post-hearing briefs, the matter was
submitted for decision on December 2, 2003.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The District is a public agency within the meaning of MMBA section 3501(c). The
Rainbow Water District Employees Association (REA) is a recognized employee organization
within the meaning of section 350l(b), representing a unit of employees employed by the
District. By letter of November 8, 2002, REA informed the District that it had retained the
services of City Employees Associates (CEA) as its labor relations consulting firm. 	In January
2003, agents of REA and CEA met with District management in what CEA's principal
described as a "friendly" meeting. However, by letter of January 18, the District informed
CEA that it does not recognize CEA as the "authorized representative" of REA, or as having
"legal authority" to represent any REA unit employees regarding their labor relations with the
District. 3 The letter also threatened to report agents of the CEA to the California Bar
2 MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code. MMBA section 3502
guarantees to public employees the right to "form, join, and participate in the activities of
employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation" and "to
represent themselves individually in their employment relations with the public agency."
Section 3506 mandates that public agencies "shall not interfere with, intimidate, restrain,
coerce or discriminate against public employees because of their exercise of their rights under
Section 3502." 	Section 3509(b) provides that any violation of MMBA is an unfair practice.
3 CEA had also been retained by the Rainbow District Association of Managers and
Supervisors (RAMS) and the District also refused to recognize CEA as the RAMS
representative. The District was apparently confused for some time as to whether CEA was
2

Association for attempting to contact District management directly instead of going through
the District's outside law firm. In the letter, the District also noted that unit employees are "at-
will" and have no due process rights.
Goddard began his employment with the District on September 11, 2002, as a
custodian. As he was receiving disability retirement benefits from the Public Employees
Retirement System (PERS), his employment contract was time-limited. Shortly after his hire,
Goddard applied for the posted position of Value Maintenance Technician I. As this position
was permanent and full-time, he needed clearance from PERS, which both he and his treating
physician requested. For the new position, Goddard had passed the written exam, the physical
and drug tests, had been interviewed, and Human Resources Administrator Rene Bush (Bush)
sent an "intent to hire" letter to PERS. On approximately February 10, Goddard met with
General Manager Greg Ensminger (Ensminger) in his office; after some small talk, Ensminger
shook Goddard's hand, said he had passed the background check, and said, "Welcome
aboard."4 Goddard's supervisor Kevin Miller (Miller) also congratulated him and told him that
he was to start training for the new job the following Monday. Although Goddard had not yet
received his official PERS clearance, filled out tax forms, or been given a starting date, I credit
his uncontradicted testimony that he was given a few hours of training prior to his discharge on
February 13.
another labor organization with which REA and RAMS intended to affiliate, or whether it was
being retained as labor consultant. Apparently, the District now recognizes CEA's status as
the latter.
4 At the hearing, Goddard and Ensminger disagreed as to who asked for the meeting; I
need not and do not resolve this dispute. Ensminger denied assuring Goddard that he had the
new job; however, he did not deny shaking Goddard's hand, telling him he passed the
background check, and saying, "Welcome aboard." Thus, I credit Goddard in this regard.
3

With regard to Goddard's relationship with REA, it is undisputed that he had been
attending REA meetings and wanted to join, notwithstanding that as a temporary employee he
was not a member of the bargaining unit. CEA had told him they would recommend to REA
that he be allowed to join. Of course, had he gotten the permanent technician position, he
would have become a unit member.
On the afternoon of February 11, Goddard was emptying trash outside Ensminger's
office. Although the door was closed and Goddard was standing 10-15 feet away, he could
hear Ensminger talking to someone he addressed as "Chris."5 Goddard knew there were two
employees named Chris, but he did not recognize the voice and did not know which one
Ensminger was talking to. According to Goddard, Ensminger said that employees had no right
to associate with CEA, that CEA only wanted to take their money, that associations make what
he (Ensminger) is trying to accomplish more difficult, and that the only way he would accept
CEA is if "they shove it down my throat." Then Ensminger said, "Chris, if you can help me
on this the sky's the limit as far as your career goes," and "[I]f we can work together on this we
can really shine, really go places."
Karen Diego (Diego), a fellow employee, then entered the area. 	Goddard told her what
he had just heard, and said he believed Ensminger was illegally offering an employee a
promotion if the employee would work against the union. Diego listened at the door but did
not comment and left the area. According to Goddard, whose uncontradicted testimony I
credit, he intended to contact REA, but the then-acting president was out in the field and could
not be reached. He therefore left a message with Robin Nahan of CEA, and related the
Ensminger conversation to Midge Thomas (Thomas), fellow employee and former REA
5 It was obvious from Ensminger' s testimony at the hearing that he has a loud and clear
speaking voice.
4

president. That afternoon, Miller approached Goddard and said a rumor was going around
about the Ensminger conversation; Goddard told Miller what he had heard, said he believed
what Ensminger said was illegal, and that he intended to report it to REA.
Goddard testified that, at the weekly Monday morning staff meetings, Ensminger often
discussed REA and CEA, saying that employees had no right to have REA associate with CEA
and that the District would not recognize CEA, and that the employees were at-will and he
could discharge them at any time.
On February 12, Goddard was called to an investigatory meeting in the human
resources office with Bush, Miller, and Chris Heiney (Heiney), the unit employee speaking
with Ensminger on February 11. Goddard repeated what he had overheard, and again said he
did not think what Ensminger said was right and that he intended to report it to CEA.6
Notwithstanding that nothing Heiney said in response to Ensminger had been rumored or was
at issue, Heiney was angry and accused Goddard of damaging his reputation. Goddard
explained that he did not know which "Chris" that Ensminger was talking to on February 11,
and that he was sorry if he hurt Heiney because he thought they were friends. 	But Heiney was
not placated. Heiney said he had gone to Ensminger only to find out how REA's association
with CEA would affect him and Ensminger reassured him he would not be hurt by CEA, but
Goddard's rumor had blown everything out of proportion.
Bush reminded Goddard that he worked in areas containing confidential information
which he should not disclose. Goddard acknowledged that his job required certain confidential
obligations, but said he thought Ensminger was doing something illegal. When Bush ended the
meeting, she cautioned both Goddard and Heiney to keep both their meeting and the
6 Bush testified that she could not recall whether Goddard said he would contact CEA,
thus I credit Goddard's clear memory over Bush's inability to recall.
5

February 11 conversation confidential. She then questioned two other employees, who had
heard the rumor from sources other than Goddard. However, she did not speak with
Ensminger. Bush testified that she was concerned about confidentiality, but not with the truth
of the rumor or whether Ensminger had made Heiney an illegal offer of promotion. Bush
concluded from her investigation that Goddard had breached the code of confidentiality. She
testified that she did not know whether the District's employee manual specifically addresses
confidentiality, but that it does provide discipline for "conduct unbecoming an employee,"
which she contended includes confidentiality. On cross-examination, Bush conceded that
employees should report a confidential conversation regarding a crime; however, she had never
thought about whether they should report a confidential illegality.
Bush met with Ensminger on the morning of February 13 and reported the results of her
investigation. According to Bush, she told him only that Goddard had "broken the
confidentiality code." According to Ensminger's testimony, Bush said Goddard had "spun bits
and pieces" of the February 11 conversation into an untrue story and spread it. However, it is
clear that Bush did not ask Ensminger himself what he had said or whether any part of the
rumor was true. Ensminger testified that he then decided to terminate Goddard. He did not
"think it necessary" to talk to Goddard before making his decision, because he "trusted
[Bush's] investigation" and his own "impression" that Goddard had spread the rumor to
"several employees." Ensminger instructed Bush to notify PERS that Goddard's promotion
was not to proceed, because Goddard was "not the kind of employee I'm looking for," one
with honesty, integrity, work ethic, and a good value system.
On the afternoon of February 13, Goddard was again called to the human resources
office where Bush informed him that, as a result of the investigation, he was terminated.
6

Miller escorted Goddard out of the building and handed him his personal belongings, which
had already been gathered.
None of the other employees who had circulated the rumor to coworkers were
punished; Bush testified that she did not know why this was so.
As to the truth of the February 11 conversation, Heiney testified that he met with
Ensminger because he wanted to know whether he would be "protected" if REA decided to
affiliate with CEA, and sought Ensminger's advice as to what he could do if things got "ugly."
Heiney said he did not want to be part of CEA because he did not agree with its "philosophy"
but he had no influence to keep CEA out. However, Heiney did not describe what he meant by
"ugly" or why he thought he needed protection, or from what. Heiney denied that Ensminger
made any promise or offer to him if he would help to keep out CEA. However, when asked
what Ensminger did say to him, Heiney said he could not recall any of it, as it was so long ago.
Heiney claimed he and Ensminger also made small talk about other things, but he could not
recall any of it. He said he heard vacuuming outside the office door and knew it was Goddard;
therefore, when he heard the rumor, he knew Goddard had started it. Heiney testified that he is
friendly with everyone, including management, and the rumor hurt his relationship with people
he is "trying to get along with." He said there are "cliques" who are opposed to management
and who want to "stir things up," but he offered no details or explanation of this statement
Ensminger also testified. He said that when he came to the District, he told employees
that everyone starts with an A-plus, and "the sky's the limit" if they do a good job. As to CEA,
he said he originally thought it was a "full-blown union," and admitted that he told employees
he would not recognize it because it had not gone through the proper District procedures for
recognition. Ensminger did not deny telling employees that he could discharge them at any
time because they were at-will employees; thus, I credit Goddard and find that he did say these
7

things from time to time at Monday staff meetings.7 As to the February 11 conversation,
Ensminger testified that he assured Heiney his protection would come from being a good
employee, that if REA signed a collective-bargaining agreement Heiney would get its benefits,
and that he did not have to be a member of CEA in order to be a member of REA. Ensminger
did not testify, however, as to whether he offered Heiney a promotion if he would assist in
getting rid of CEA.
Accordingly, given Ensminger's failure to testify on this most important issue and
Heincy's summary denial that he was bribed, coupled with his failure to recall anything
Ensminger said, I make an adverse inference against both of them and discredit their accounts
of the February 11 conversation. (Ready Mixed Concrete Co. v. NLRB (10 th Cir. 1996) 81
F.3d 1546 [152 LRRM 2159] [when a party's witness fails to testify to an essential fact, an
inference may be drawn that if the testimony were given, it would be adverse to that party's
interest].)8 Further, I find Heincy's testimony, that he went to Ensminger only for advice
because he thought things might get "ugly," combined with Heincy's inability to provide any
explanation of what it was that he feared or what Ensminger' s advice was, to be unpersuasive
and I do not credit it. Accordingly, I credit Goddard in this regard and find that in the
February 11 conversation, Ensminger told Heiney that he could have a promotion ifhe helped
Ensminger get rid of CEA.
7 Brown offered her own view that she "personally" did not think Ensminger would tell
employees they had no right to be represented by CEA. I find this opinion speculative and
give it no weight.
8 PERB and the California courts have long held that decisions of the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) interpreting similar statutes, e.g., those prohibiting discrimination,
may be persuasive. (Inglewood Teachers Association v. PERB (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 767
[278 Cal.Rptr. 228].)
8

ISSUE
Was Jan Goddard unlawfully discharged because of his protected activities?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in violation ofMMBA section 3506,
the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the
employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or
threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise
interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee because of the exercise of those rights.
(Campbell Municipal Employees Association v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416
[182 Cal.Rptr. 461]); San Leandro Police Officers Association v. City of San Leandro (1976)
55 Cal.App.3d 553 [127 Cal.Rptr. 856].)
In analyzing the burdens of proof regarding these factors, NLRB v. Burnup & Sims,
Inc. (1964) 379 U.S. 21 [57 LRRM 2385] (Burnup & Sims) is instructive. There, the Court
held that once the charging party has shown an employee was punished for engaging in
protected activity, the burden then shifts to the employer to show that the employee engaged in
misconduct during the course of that activity. Here, Goddard was discharged because he told
two fellow employees, the CEA, and his supervisor that Ensminger had illegally offered to
promote an employee in exchange for helping to get rid of CEA. Thus, the questions are first,
whether Goddard's report was protected activity; and second, whether he engaged in
misconduct causing him to lose that protection. The District argues that Goddard committed a
serious breach of confidentiality, notwithstanding the truth or falsity of his report. Goddard
contends that his conduct was protected, notwithstanding the District's claim that the
conversation was confidential. I agree with Goddard.
9

It is axiomatic that acts done in furtherance of union interests are protected. (Los
Angeles Unified School District (1992) PERB Decision No. 957; North Sacramento School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 264.) As noted above, while Goddard was not yet a
member of REA, he had been attending its meetings and was intending to join at his earliest
opportunity. Ensminger's offer to Heiney would tend to interfere with Goddard's right to
participate in REA, as well as REA's right to represent the unit employees.9 Accordingly, I
conclude that Goddard's report was made in furtherance of union interests and was protected
under MMBA section 3502.
As to whether that protection was lost, in Mediplex of Wetherfield (1995) 320 NLRB
510 [153 LRRM 1103], an employee's discharge for attempting to induce group action over an
issue he innocently misunderstood was held unlawful, as the NLRB found that the truth or
falsity of his statements was not the proper test in such a circumstance. However, in The Hertz
Corporation (1998) 326 NLRB 1097 [166 LRRM 1200], the administrative law judge's
decision, adopted by the NLRB, noted that statutory protection is lost when an employee acts
in bad faith, or with knowledge of the falsity of his remarks, or with intent to harass the
employer or cause it economic harm. Here, I have already found that Goddard truthfully
reported Ensminger's remarks. Even if Goddard had misconstrued the remarks, however, there
is no evidence that he acted in bad faith or with any thought that his report was untrue. In this
regard, I take note that Goddard did not spread a rumor willy-nilly; rather, he told only Diego,
who appeared outside Ensminger's office during the conversation; Thomas, a former REA
president; and supervisor Miller, who asked him about it. Accordingly, ifEnsminger's
remarks had been made in a public place, Goddard could not be faulted for repeating them.
9 MMBA section 3503 guarantees to recognized employee organizations the right to
"represent their members in their employment relations with public agencies."

But Goddard repeated words spoken from behind the closed door of the speaker's
office. While PERB has not yet addressed the relationship between confidentiality and
protected activity, in Canyon Ranch, Inc. (1996) 321 NLRB 937, 937 [154 LRRM 1225]
(Canyon Ranch), the NLRB held that "private communications between management officials
or between union officials (or employees) are entitled to respect." Thus, an employee was
lawfully discharged for disclosing to coworkers a letter from a supervisor to the company
president discussing certain terms and conditions of employment, which he found on the
supervisor's desk. Here, by contrast, the February 11 conversation was not a communication
between managers, but between a manager and a unit employee. Further, while Ensminger
may have had an expectation of privacy, it would not befit this agency nor serve the purposes
of the MMBA to afford his illegal offer of promotion a measure of respect. Thus, I find the
principles enunciated in Canyon Ranch inapplicable.
In Super One Foods (1989) 294 NLRB 462 [131 LRRM 1773] (Super One Foods), the
NLRB held that an employee was unlawfully discharged for violating a company rule
prohibiting employees from discussing wages among themselves, as the rule itself was
unlawful. The employer argued, nevertheless, that the employee was not entitled to
reinstatement and back pay as he had taken a "confidential" wage list from the manager's
office, copied it, and distributed it to coworkers. In holding that the employee had not lost the
protection of the statute by this conduct, the NLRB reasoned that he found the list "in plain
view" on the manager's desk while performing his regular duty of cleaning the manager's
office, and that because of the employer's unlawful rule, employees were prevented from
obtaining wage information on their own. A different result was reached in IBM Corporation
(1982) 265 NLRB 638 [111 LRRM 1665] (IBM), where an employee was lawfully discharged
for disclosing a wage survey which he found on a manager's desk. In the absence of a
11

company rule prohibiting employees from discussing wages, the NLRB balanced the
employees' right to discuss wages against the employer's legitimate business justification for
keeping the wage survey confidential. These two cases differ in their result because in Super
One Foods, the employer maintained an unlawful rule preventing employees from exercising
their statutory rights, while in IBM, the employer did nothing unlawful.
In the instant case, as in Super One Foods, Goddard was performing his regular
cleaning duties when he overheard a conversation which he believed to be, and was in fact,
unlawful, and attempted to enlist the protest of coworkers. As discussed above, the District
had no specific rule regarding confidentiality. And Bush not only conceded that employees
should report criminal conduct even if conducted in private, but she could not state with any
conviction that they were prohibited from reporting private illegalities. Further, any rule
which would prohibit employees from reporting violations of the MMBA would be unlawful
on its face. 	(Super One Foods.)
Applying the Burnup & Sims analysis, I find that Goddard engaged in protected activity
when he reported Ensminger's February 11 conversation, he was discharged because of that
activity, and the District has failed its burden of showing that he engaged in any misconduct in
the course of that activity. Accordingly, I conclude that by discharging Goddard, the District
violated the MMBA as alleged in the complaint.
REMEDY
MMBA section 3509(b) gives PERB the authority to determine:
... the appropriate remedy necessary to effectuate the purposes of
this chapter, ...
The District unlawfully discriminated against Goddard by discharging him because of
his protected activity, in violation ofMMBA section 3506. The ordinary remedy in such cases
12

is an order directing the respondent to cease and desist from discriminating against its
employees because of their protected activities and to make the discriminatee whole for any
losses which he suffered as a result ofrespondent' s conduct. It is also the ordinary remedy that
respondent be ordered to post a notice incorporating the terms of the order. It effectuates the
purposes of MMBA that employees be informed by a notice, signed by an authorized agent,
that respondent has acted unlawfully, is being required to cease and desist from its unlawful
activity, and will comply with the order.
PROPOSED ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in
this matter, it is found that on or about February 13, 2003, the Rainbow Municipal Water
District (District) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code
section 3506 and committed an unfair practice under section 3509(b) by discharging Jan
Goddard (Goddard) because of his protected activity. Therefore, pursuant to MMBA section
3509(b), it is hereby ORDERED that the District, its governing board and its representatives,
shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Discriminating against employees because of their exercise of the right to
engage in activities protected by the MMBA.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Within ten (10) workdays after service of a final decision in this matter,
make Goddard whole for any losses he suffered by: removing from District records all
reference to his discharge on February 13, 2003; offering him reinstatement to the position of
Value Maintenance Technician I, or if that position no longer exists then to an equivalent
13

position, provided he receives clearance from PERS to accept a full-time position; and paying
him back pay based on wages set for Value Maintenance Technician I, with interest at the rate
of 7 percent per annum.
2. 	Within ten (10) workdays after service of a final decision in this matter,
post copies of the Notice to Employees attached hereto as an Appendix, signed by an
authorized agent of the District, at all work locations where notices to employees are
customarily posted. 	Such posting shall be maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive
workdays. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size,
altered, defaced or covered with any other material;
3. 	Upon issuance of a final decision, make written notification of the
actions taken to comply with the Order to the Sacramento Regional Director of the Public
Employment Relations Board in accord with the director's instructions.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this
Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32300.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close of business
(5 p.m.) on the last day set for filing or when mailed by certified or Express United States mail,
14

as shown on the postal receipt or postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising
overnight delivery, as shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32135(a) and 32130.)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before
the close of business on the last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover
Sheet which meets the requirements of California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original, together with the required
number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sec. 32135(b),
(c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32090 and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, secs. 32300, 32305,
32140, and 32135(c).)
15
(\
~lclr~QkV	uAnn L. Weinman
Administrative Law Judge