UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION – Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership
Single Topic for Decision 2386S
Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text
801.03000 – Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership
There is no union security agreement in place which conditions employment on union membership and no evidence was offered to suggest that charging party’s suspension from union had any impact on his employment. The Board generally declines jurisdiction where internal union affairs and procedures are alleged to violate the duty of fair representation except where it can be shown that the internal union activity has “a substantial impact on the relationships of unit members to their employers.” (Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106.) Absent such impact, the duty of fair representation does not extend to internal union activities. The ALJ properly analyzed union’s internal disciplinary procedures under the only restriction applied to them under section 3515.5 of the Dills Act, that they be reasonable and reasonably applied. We agree with the ALJ that the union’s procedures, including the requirement under its Standing Rules, that a member fully exhaust internal union remedies before resorting to external proceedings, are reasonable. As the ALJ pointed out, the Standing Rules do not prevent a member from resorting to judicial proceedings, it merely requires that he exhaust union remedies and give the union a full opportunity to reach an internal resolution of any dispute regarding its members. The fact that an administrative body has decided other cases involving other plaintiffs on similar facts against plaintiff's position does not make an administrative appeal futile nor do such facts excuse a litigant from exhausting available administrative remedies. We find the evidence regarding union’s denial of the other appeals unpersuasive on the futility claim. Charging party adduced no details regarding those other cases or how union’s actions in those cases were unreasonable.