Single Topic for Decision A430M

View all topics for Decision A430M

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

1306.01000 – In General; Requirements

PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f) requires a party to file evidence that proof of employee support was obtained by fraud or coercion, or that the signatures on such support documents are not genuine, with PERB’s regional office in the form of declarations under penalty of perjury within 20 days after the filing of the Petition which the proof of support accompanied. PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f) prohibits the Board from considering “any evidence not timely submitted, absent a showing of good cause for late submission” and that the regulation must be strictly construed. (PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f).) Employer’s two sworn declarations were filed by MBTA well beyond the 20-day deadline provided for in PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f). Employer made no effort to explain why there was good cause for late submission. Therefore, the Office of the General Counsel did not err in rejecting the late-submitted declarations. In fact, PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f) left the Office of the General Counsel with no choice but to refuse to consider them. Under PERB Regulation 61020, subd. (f), only “parties” as defined by PERB Regulation 61005 may file declarations under penalty of perjury in support of a claim that proof of support was obtained by fraud or coercion, and that such declarations needed to be filed within 20 days of the filing of the petition for recognition. If an employee’s allegations came to employer’s attention after the 20-day deadline, it could have submitted its own sworn declaration as to when and how it learned of the employee’s allegations in arguing for good cause to accept the late filing. It made no such effort at the time the declarations were filed with PERB, and thereby waived its claim for good cause for the late filing. There is no basis for treating petitions that oppose proof of majority support as revocations of employee authorizations when none of the employees whose signatures appear on the opposition petitions establish the requisite intent to revoke a previously-given authorization. Absent proof of fraud or coercion, MMBA or PERB regulations do not authorize revocations of authorizations for representation. Because there was no showing that parties mutually agreed to permit revocations, PERB rejected the opposition petitions and the employee declarations as valid revocations of previously signed authorization cards.