Decision 0984H – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Alvarez)
Decision Date: March 23, 1993
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 17
Perc Index: 24064
1100.03000 – Standing
Charging party lacked standing to assert violations of the exclusive representative's statutory bargaining obligations, and to file an unfair practice charge challenging bargaining unit composition; pp. 4-5.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Charging party lacked standing to assert violations of the exclusive representative's statutory bargaining obligations, file an unfair practice charge or unit modification challenging bargaining unit composition, and allege denial of employee organization rights. Charging party also cannot charge an exclusive representative with violating HEERA section 3579, which imposes duties upon PERB alone; pp. 3-5.
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
Charging party failed to state a prima facie case that the exclusive representative violated its duty of fair representation by failing to consult with or allow a vote of employees in job classes transferred between bargaining units by agreement between the University and AFSCME. The union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, or without rational basis and devoid of honest judgment; pp. 2-4, warning letter; pp. 2-3, dismissal letter.
804.01000 – In General
Charging party lacked standing to assert a violation of the exclusive representative's duty to bargain in good faith; p. 4.
1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
Board dismissed case on the basis of de novo review; p. 3.
1310.01000 – In General
Charging party lacked standing to file a unit modification petition to challenge bargaining unit composition; pp. 4-5.
1502.01000 – In General
Under HEERA, public notice complaints must be filed in accordance with PERB regulations governing public notice complaints, not as unfair practice charges; p. 4.