Skelly and Weingarten
Your Rights at Work

 

See also: SPSE Newsletter #3, September 1999

"Skelly"
In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975), the court ruled that the employee (Skelly) had a property interest in continued employment and hence could not be deprived of his job without the observance of due process. Although the LLNL/UC argued that this did not apply to their employees, a decision by the California State Court of Appeals, Mendoza v. Regents of University of California (1978), decided otherwise. The appellate court ruled that since Ms. Mendoza was not accorded due process prior to dismissal, she was entitled to back pay, etc.

From the SPSE Newsletter #2, April 1978

LLNL's Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, Section K.III.4 and 5 is the Lab's implementation of the Skelly and Mendoza decisions.

Excerpted from Section K--Separations

III.4. Written Notice of Intention to Dismiss

An employee shall be informed in writing by the Human Resources Manager of the intention to dismiss. The written notice shall include the following:

a. The reason for the intended dismissal.
b. A copy of the appropriate charges and materials upon which the intention
    to dismiss is based.
c. A statement that the employee has a right to respond either orally or in
    writing within five calendar days from the date the employee is given the
    notice.

Following the employee's response or five calendar days, whichever comes first, the employee shall be informed in writing by the Human Resources Manager as to the final decision, that is,

  • Dismissal is inappropriate.
  • Corrective action will be taken in lieu of dismissal. (Prior written notice of corrective action is not necessary.) [See Section E.II.4.2(c).]
  • Dismissal is appropriate. (See Section K.III.5.)

III.5. Written Notice of Dismissal

The Human Resources Manager shall give an advance written notice of dismissal which shall include the following:

a. The effective date of termination.
b. The reason for dismissal.
c. The employee's right to appeal the dismissal. (See Section H, "Grievances
    and Administrative Review.")


Weingarten
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc. established an employee's right to have a union representative present at a meeting that may, in his/her belief, result in disciplinary action. Although there is no LLNL policy explaining this right, Lab employees are entitled to it and may exercise it when appropriate.

For further information, visit these links

 

Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/