All notes for Subtopic 801.03000 – Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2417S | California Association of Professional Scientists (Rachlis) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership Sections 3515.5 and 3519.5(b) of the Dills Act confer on the Board jurisdiction to determine whether an employee organization has exceeded its authority to discipline its members by expelling or suspending them from membership. Members of employee organizations have a protected right to reasonable disciplinary procedures and the reasonable application of those procedures, and a union’s failure to establish or to follow reasonable disciplinary procedures violates Dills Act section 3515.5 and thus interferes with members' rights under Dills Act section 3519.5(b). PERB looks to the fairness of a union proceeding to expel or suspend a member to determine its reasonableness. Not every deviation from a union’s procedural rules will result in PERB overturning the union’s disciplinary decision. Thus, where the alleged deviation or unreasonable application of procedures was sufficiently removed from the union’s determination of the merits of charges resulting in expulsion from membership, PERB refused to overturn the union’s decision. Since charging party’s motion to disqualify members of a union’s member disciplinary panel did not satisfy the union’s procedural rules requiring an allegation of bias, the panel would have been acting fully within the union’s policy to dismiss his challenge outright or to simply ignore it. Although the panel used an allegedly imperfect method to dismiss the challenge, there was no evidence that charging party was prevented from defending himself on the merits to the charge against him, and no harm to charging party’s rights resulted from the union’s actions, since the union’s rules and the application of those rules were fair and did not deprive him of substantial justice. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 129 | 03/24/15 |
| 2386S | California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (Armantrout) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 18 | 06/30/14 |
| 1814S | CDF Firefighters (Pittman) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership A charging party must specifically describe why an internal union procedure or its application is unreasonable. In this case, the charging party failed to do so. The test under Dills Act section 3515.5 only applies to an employee who has been suspended or expelled from union membership. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 58 | 02/07/06 |
| 1815S | CDF Firefighters (Pittman) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership A party must specifically describe why a procedure or its application is unreasonable. In this case, the charging party failed to do so. The test under Dills Act section 3515.5 only applies to an employee who has been suspended or expelled from union membership. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 59 | 02/07/06 |
| 1624E | Antelope Valley College Federation of Teachers (Stryker) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership Similar to the situation in California State Employees Association (Barker & Osuna) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1551-S, the Federation’s removal of Stryker from the negotiating team differs from suspension or dismissal from membership governed by EERA section 3543.1(a). Therefore, the Federation did not interfere with protected rights under EERA. The Federation did not discriminate against Stryker under EERA since removal from the negotiating team is an internal union matter and Stryker provided no facts showing a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 146 | 04/28/04 |
| 1683E | California School Employees Association and its Chapter 36 (Peterson) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership EERA section 3543.1(a) provides that an employee organization may establish reasonable restrictions regarding its membership. Charging party’s allegation that he was removed from union office fails to implicate EERA section 3543.1(a) since his membership was not affected. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 242 | 08/27/04 |
| 1551S | California State Employeees Association (Barker and Osuna) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership The Board will review the reasonableness of union membership rules under Dills Act section 3515.5. (California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1479-S; California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1479a-S. [CSEA(Hard)]) This case differs from CSEA(Hard) in that CSEA did not suspend or dismiss Barker and Osuna from membership when removing them from their BUNC chair positions. The Board is normally reluctant to interfere in the internal union affairs of employee organizations unless there is an impact on the employee’s relationship with the employer. Here there was no showing of any impact from CSEA’s removal of Barker and Osuna from their BUNC chair positions. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 4 | 10/17/03 |
| 1479Sa | California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership Union’s failure to establish or follow reasonable disciplinary procedures violates section 3515.5 and interferes with employee’s protected rights under section 3519.5(b). more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 2 | 10/21/02 |
| 1479S | California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership CSEA’s suspension of member during nominating period violated section 3515.5. Reasonableness of membership provisions are measured on the provision and/or its application. Charging Party did not provide an adequate showing that participation in rallies, distributing literature, wearing union buttons or t-shirts impacted the employer-employee relationship sufficiently to support a finding of protected activity. This case is distinguishable from the ruling in Cupertino Union Elementary School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 572. In Cupertino, PERB held that an employer’s action was motivated by protected acts of the group, then the action is unlawful as to the entire group. PERB did not hold that the unrelated protected acts of some members of a group would automatically be attributed to all members of the group, as was the case in this matter. PERB has jurisdiction, under section 3515.5 to determine the reasonableness of a union’s rules regarding who may join and the dismissal or suspension of members. Unlike PERB’s decision in California State Employees Association (Hackett) (1993) PERB Decision No. 979-S, there was no immediate threat or emergency to warrant CSEA’s invocation of its summary suspension procedure. Although Section 3515.5 specifically refers to dismissal of individuals from membership, PERB has jurisdiction over suspensions as well, fn. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33065 | 05/02/02 |
| 1126S | California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by California State Employees Association (Hard et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S, p. 28. * * *Dills Act section 3515 guarantees employees the right to "participate" in a union which includes dissident activity that falls short of a decertification effort; pp. 4-5. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27014 | 12/06/95 |
| 1074E | American Federation of Teachers (Leptich) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership The union's requirement that an employee by employed within the bargaining unit that it represents does not facially violate the concept of reasonable rules and regulations concerning membership. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26032 | 12/08/94 |
| 1064S | California Union of Safety Employees (John) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership The connection between the charging party's protected activity and the union's adverse action was clearly established by direct testimony that the union would not have terminated its representation of the charging party had he not been involved with a rival employee organization; p. 13. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26004 | 11/01/94 |
| 0755S | California Correctional Peace Officers Association (Colman) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership An employee organization's unreasonable interference with an employee's right to be an organization member is a denial of protected rights; p. 17, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20160 | 07/25/89 |
| 0745S | California Association of Psychiatric Technicians (Long) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership Absent reasonable restrictions regarding who may join a union, the employees's right to join is unqualified. Preventing an employee in the unit from becoming a member is adverse action by the union; pp. 8-9. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20135 | 06/20/89 |
| 1733E | California School Employees Association and Its Chapter 36 (Peterson) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership Peterson’s exclusion from running for union office is not an adverse action. Participation in union elections is an internal union affair and the Board has traditionally refused to interfere in the internal union affairs of an employee organization unless those affairs impact the member’s relationship with his/her employer. Peterson has not demonstrated any impact on the employer-employee relationship by CSEA precluding him from running for office. Contrast the Board’s ruling in California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1032-S. Exclusion from participation in a union election is not the same as suspension or dismissal from membership in the union, a matter subject to Board review under EERA section 3543.1(a). more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 50 | 12/28/04 |
| 0442E | California School Employees Association-Chapter 318 (Harmening) 801.03000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership Recall of chapter president where nonmembers allowed to vote does not state a prima facie violation of organization's section 3543.1(a) obligation to establish "reasonable" provisions for discipline. The action did not remove the former president from union membership, and was not disciplinary in nature. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16006 | 11/29/84 |