UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION – Mode or Adequacy of Representation/Advocacy

Single Topic for Decision 1693M

View all topics for Decision 1693M

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

Although Local 250 took over two years to process, this did not preclude the grievance from potentially proceeding to arbitration since SEIU preserved the timelines. Disagreement with a union’s decision not to proceed to arbitration does not breach the duty of fair representation. The Board does not judge whether the union’s position is correct, only whether it was devoid of any rational basis or whether it was reached for arbitrary reasons. Local 250 communicated to Hessong its belief that the grievance lacked merit. While other of Hessong’s grievances were delayed, Local 250 preserved the timelines and did not abandon the grievances. It also kept Hessong apprised of their progress.