Nick Martens was a police officer in the city of Marion, Iowa. Martens also served as the president of the Marion Policeman’s Protective Association. In that capacity, Martens sent an email to management reporting a complaint on behalf of a Union member which allegedly contained factual inaccuracies, which Martens failed to catch or correct. One day later, the City reassigned Martens from investigations to patrol. Although Martens’ transfer did not result in a decrease in pay, it did cause him to lose out on opportunities for training and to earn compensatory time, as well as changing his work hours. The Union filed an unfair labor practice with the state labor board, alleging that Martens was transferred in retaliation for protected union activity. The City countered that Martens was transferred as a result of his failure to vet the accuracy of the allegations contained in his email, not for his decision to engage in protected activity. An ALJ ruled in the Union’s favor, and the City appealed.
The Board reviewed the ALJ’s proposed decision and reversed. First, the Board explained that in evaluating mixed-motive cases like this one, it would follow a seminal National Labor Relations Board case called Wright Line. Under the Wright Line analysis, the employee has the burden to establish the prima facie case: (1) the employee was engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer had knowledge of that activity; (3) the employer subject the employee to an adverse employment action; and (4) the employer did so with anti-union animus. The City challenged the ALJ’s findings on points (3) and (4).
The Board determined that the ALJ correctly found that Martens’ transfer constituted an adverse employment action. Although Martens’ hourly pay rate was unaffected by the transfer, he was adversely affected because he lost training and compensatory pay opportunities and had to change his work hours.
The Board reversed the ALJ’s finding that the transfer was based on anti-union animus. The parties agreed that the only evidence of anti-union animus was the timing of the transfer – just one day after Martens sent the email advocating on behalf of a member. However, the Board noted that the timing also supported the City’s argument – that it disciplined Martens for making false, unverified allegations. The record contained evidence supporting the City’s version of events. Martens acknowledged in his testimony that other than the reassignment at issue in this matter, he had no evidence that the City or the police chief treated him differently because of his Union membership. Martens had made other complaints in the past about City policies without punishment. The City showed that the police chief had transferred another employee from investigations to patrol under similar circumstances. The one day between Martens’ email and his transfer was not enough to establish anti-union animus, and the Union’s ULP charge was dismissed.
City of Marion, CASE NO. 102649, 2023 WL 9957741 (Iowa Pub. Emp. Rel. Bd., 2023).