All notes for Subtopic 801.04000 – Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc.
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2744E | San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. The Board found no factual allegations suggesting that parent labor organization failed to establish or follow reasonable procedures in conducting investigation of local union schism. In this inquiry, PERB’s touchstone is fairness. (California Association of Professional Scientists (Rachlis) (2015) PERB Decision No. 2417-S, p. 10.) In order for internal union procedures to be fair, an accused union member must receive notice of alleged wrongdoing and “rudimentary rights of defense” that provide “substantial justice,” but “the refined and technical practices which have developed in the courts cannot be imposed upon the deliberations of workingmen and the form of the procedure is ordinarily immaterial if the accused is accorded a fair trial.” (Ibid., internal quotations and citations omitted.) Indeed, even when a union unreasonably applies or departs from its own rules, a charging party must show how the alleged unfairness impacted the outcome. (Id. at p. 11.) Technical or minor imperfections are not sufficient to show that a union denied a charging party substantial justice. (Id. at pp. 11-14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 35 | 08/31/20 |
| 2744E | San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. Even if parent labor organization investigating a schism between a local union’s warring factions were a proper respondent, charging party could not state a prima facie case because he complained of purely internal union matters. By censuring charging party and ordering him to attend board meetings telephonically, parent labor organization did not impact his employment relationship with the employer. Nor did parent labor organization fine him or impact his membership, meaning these allegations do not fall into the narrow Kimmett exception for allegations that a union has failed to establish or follow reasonable internal procedures regarding disciplinary fines or membership restrictions. (See, e.g., Coalition of University Employees (Higgins) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1855-H, adopting warning letter at pp. 2-3 [dismissing charge against union that removed its elected president but issued no fine or membership suspension].) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 35 | 08/31/20 |
| 2417S | California Association of Professional Scientists (Rachlis) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. 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) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. 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 |
| 2277M | Service Employees International Union, Local 221 (Gutierrez) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. The Board has held that an employee organization may suspend membership for conduct that attempts to thwart the fundamental objectives of the employee organization because a member has an inherent duty of loyalty and such conduct breaches that duty; the Board has drawn a line between life-threatening activities for which a member may reasonably be suspended from membership and other dissident activities that merely challenge a union’s leadership for which a member may not be reasonably suspended from membership; while employees in a bargaining unit are within their rights to refrain from joining or participating in an employee organization, an employee organization is within its right to take defensive action through disciplinary proceedings against members who actively work to harm the employee’s fiscal and other interests; where charging party advocated as a shop steward that members drop their union membership and become agency fee payers, such conduct threatened the existence of the union and was of sufficient seriousness to justify a self-protective response by the union of suspending charging party’s membership for two years. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 28 | 06/29/12 |
| 2157E | Rio Teachers Association (Lucas) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. A violation of EERA section 3546.5 occurs when a union fails to make available to its members the financial report for the immediately preceding fiscal year. To be timely, a charge alleging a violation of section 3546.5 must be filed within six months of when the charging party knew or should have known that the employee organization failed or refused to provide the requested financial report for the immediately preceding fiscal year. Nothing in EERA section 3546.5 specifies that the union has an obligation to keep or make financial reports available to future members on an ongoing basis. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 27 | 01/21/11 |
| 2049S | Service Employees International Union Local 1000 (Hernandez) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. PERB will not intervene in disputes that involve only the internal union activities of an employee organization, unless those activities substantially impact employer-employee relations. Charging party did not show that his one-year suspension from union membership had a substantial impact on his employment relationship with his employer. PERB's authority to determine whether a union membership provision is reasonable, includes whether the provision is reasonable as applied. Charging party failed to show that the union breached its voting policies in voting to suspend his membership. Charging party was also given notice of the disciplinary hearing and had an opportunity to present evidence. Finally, the hearing panel's delay in issuing his recommendation was excused because the union policies allowed for extensions of time. Union has a right to discipline a member involved in a decertification campaign against his own union. Membership rules barring suspended member from participating in union activities, including international convention, are not unreasonable. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 129 | 07/03/09 |
| 2034S | Civil Service Division, California State Employees Association (Eisenberg) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. Charging party failed to state prima facie case that SEIU expelled him from membership in retaliation for filing an unfair practice charge. Even assuming it was an adverse action for SEIU to terminate his membership, charging party failed to name the proper labor organization as a party to the case, where charge was filed against the Civil Service Division, California State Employees Association, rather than SEIU. In addition, charging party failed to provide any facts suggesting a causal connection between the filing of the unfair practice charge and the union’s decision to terminate his membership, and failed to provide facts establishing that the union’s rules concerning membership were unreasonable or unreasonably applied to charging party. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 100 | 06/04/09 |
| 1814S | CDF Firefighters (Pittman) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. 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. In discrimination charges filed against employee organizations based on internal union activity, the charge must demonstrate that the internal union conduct has an impact on employer-employee relations. In addition, the adverse action taken by the employee organization must have some impact on employer-employee relations. In this case, there was no impact on the employer-employee relations. 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) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. A party must specifically describe why a procedure or its application is unreasonable. In this case, the charging party failed to do so. In discrimination charges filed against employee organizations based on internal union activity, the charge must demonstrate that the internal union conduct had an impact on employer-employee relations. In addition, the adverse action taken by the employee organization must have some impact on employer-employee relations. In this case, there was no impact on the employer-employee relations. 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) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 146 | 04/28/04 |
| 1580M | Oxnard Harbor District 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. District challenged the legality of a union threatening to fine its members for failing to honor a picket line or call to strike. Under the NLRA, a union is free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate business interest, impairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against union members who are free to leave a union and escape the rule. Applying these criteria, the NLRB has held that a union did not violate the NLRA by threatening to fine members who failed to engage in a sympathy strike if the strike did not violate the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 56 | 01/09/04 |
| 1551S | California State Employeees Association (Barker and Osuna) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. 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 |
| 1479S | California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33065 | 05/02/02 |
| 1479Sa | California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. 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 |
| 1074E | American Federation of Teachers (Leptich) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. 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 |
| 1032S | California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. The prohibition against an employee organization's discrimination or retaliation against employees because of their protected activity is not limited to those functions of the exclusive representative which carry with them the duty of fair representation; p. 16. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25029 | 01/06/94 |
| 1009S | California State Employees Association (Roberts) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. Insufficient facts to find that union making employee ineligible to run for a position on the State bargaining Advisory Commission because no facts showing union membership rule was unreasonable; p. 9, warning letter. The facts were insufficient in the charge to demonstrate that CSEA, by prohibiting Roberts from running for bargaining representative treated her differently from other bargaining unit members, or that CSEA engaged in this conduct in retaliation for her having engaged in protected rights; p. 9, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24144 | 08/18/93 |
| 0897E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, California Federation of Teachers/American Federation of Teachers/Local 2279 (Deglow, et al.) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. Unfair practice charge dismissed where there were no allegations that charging parties engaged in protected activity, that the exclusive representative had knowledge of this activity, and that the exclusive representative's refusal to refund agency fees was motivated by the protected activity; p. 4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22137 | 08/29/91 |
| 0870E | United Teachers Los Angeles (Malin) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. Board will not intervene in the internal affairs of a union's election procedures except where there is alleged or apparent impact on the employment relationship so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation, or membership has been unreasonably restricted or the union has imposed reprisals on employees because of their exercise of protected activity; p. 10, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22053 | 03/01/91 |
| 0753H | California State Employees Association (O'Connell)* * *OVERRULED IN PART by California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. * * * OVERRULED IN PART by California State Employees Association (Hard et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S, where the Board held that the Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision No. 106 principle applies to claims that a union retaliated against or interfered with protected activity. In such claims, other than those challenging a union’s restriction on membership, a charging party employee must show the union's conduct impacted the employee’s relationship with their employer.* * *Kimmett's substantial impact test to review the internal affairs of a union applies only when a DFR issue is raised. Pursuant to HEERA section 3571.1, internal union activities may be reviewed when allegations of reprisal by the union are present, regardless of whether the union's retaliation has a substantial impact on the relationship of unit members to their employers; p. 9. [Limits holding of Rio Hondo College Faculty Association (Furriel) (1986) PERB Decision No. 583, p. 7.] more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20149 | 06/30/89 |
| 0755S | California Correctional Peace Officers Association (Colman) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. PERB is not restricted to review of union discipline to only those situations which substantially impact the employer-employee relationships; p. 20, proposed dec. PERB will give great deference to a union's interpretation of what conduct is sufficient to violate a union's own bylaws; p. 25, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20160 | 07/25/89 |
| 1733E | California School Employees Association and Its Chapter 36 (Peterson) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. 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 |
| 0315E | Simi Valley Educators Association (Ake) (Pringle) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. Association did not discriminate against nonmembers because it accepted annual payment in advance from both members and nonmembers; p. 6. As organizational security agreement which requires both members and nonmembers to execute an authorization for payroll deduction does not discriminate against nonmembers; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14164 | 05/27/83 |
| 0280E | California School Employees Association-Chapter 381 (Parisot) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. An employee organization's provision permitting suspension of a member engaged in decertification activities is reasonable under 3543.1(a); p. 9. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14058 | 01/31/83 |
| 1005S | California State Employees Association (Roberts) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. The facts were insufficient in the charge to demonstrate a nexus between the protected activity and the adverse actions; pp. 2-3, dismissal letter, re PERB intervention in internal union affairs. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24118 | 06/25/93 |
| 0979S | California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.) 801.04000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION; Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc. A prima facie case was not stated in the allegations that (1) certain members were temporarily suspended from membership; and (2) two BUNC members were refused the right to run for a union office because of their suspended status. The facts were insufficient in the charge to demonstrate a nexus between the protected activity and the adverse actions. See warning letter pp. 3-5 re PERB intervention in internal union affairs. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24053 | 03/10/93 |