Workers’ union charges UC with unfair practices

The union of many UCLA service workers filed unfair practice
charges against the University of California last week, on behalf
of two former De Neve Plaza dining services workers.

The university has until March 15 to respond to the charges made
against it.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, the union representing the workers, alleges that the two
workers were fired by UCLA because of their union activity.

According to documents filed with the UC by AFSCME, Cecilia Gayo
Neri and Maria Gamir were dismissed from De Neve on Feb. 9 and Feb.
10, respectively. UCLA Dining Services declined to comment, saying
they do not comment on personnel issues.

Gamir said she believes she was fired after voicing concerns at
a Jan. 27 union meeting about being required to serve food after
cleaning bathrooms at De Neve.

Hays Witt, a lead organizer for AFSCME, said he believes the
workers’ atmosphere is intimidating.

“Folks are not able to exercise their union rights,”
he said.

Witt said the compelling matter is that the workers were trying
to provide a service, and they approached the issue of sanitation
in a way they thought was effective.

In a supplemental statement to the university, the union cited
the workers’ circumstances that led it to allege the
occurrence of unfair labor practices.

Gamir said she attended a rally in support of grocery store
workers Jan. 31, and by Feb. 5, a flyer with her picture was posted
on a bulletin board in De Neve, drawing attention to her union
activity.

“The Sunday after that, our names were no longer on the
weekly schedule,” Gamir said.

As new hires, both employees were still serving their six-month
probations where, according to the agreement between AFSCME and the
UC, the university reserves the right to release its employees
without having to state a specific reason.

Though both employees were formally fired based on this
agreement, the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act of
California provides an exception to the rule by protecting all
workers, probationary or permanent, when union activity is cited as
a reason for termination.

The university has not yet responded to the allegations but is
legally obligated to do so by the March 15 deadline.

“In this case where the charges are particular to a
certain campus, UCLA is asked to provide a response,” said
Sim Avila, a university counsel in the UC Office of General
Counsel’s labor and employment section.

The case will then be examined by the state’s Public
Employment Relations Board, which handles claims from unions
involving alleged unfair labor practices.

The board decides on the validity of the case and chooses either
to dismiss the case or issue a formal complaint.

As the case is dependent on the availability of the two parties
and PERB, there is no time frame for when the case will be settled,
said Lynne Thompson, director of UCLA Campus Human Resources.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *