Decision 1070E – Davis Teachers Association (Carlson)

S-CO-318

Decision Date: November 29, 1994

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 19
Perc Index: 26025

Decision Headnotes

803.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION SECURITY; AGENCY/FAIR SHARE FEE; DUES DEDUCTION/CHECK OFF
803.02000 – Proper Uses

Hudson notices and reductions are not required for religious objectors, because Hudson notification and reduction of service fees are only afforded to agency fee payers; p. 8, warning letter.

803.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION SECURITY; AGENCY/FAIR SHARE FEE; DUES DEDUCTION/CHECK OFF
803.03000 – Procedures for Collection

Requirement that payment be made in one lump sum to a charitable organization is arguably more onerous than the procedure of monthly dues deducted from employee's salary. Lump sum payment rule would tend to discourage employees from seeking or remaining religious objectors because of the financial burden it imposes; p. 6, warning letter. Hudson notices and reductions are not required for religious objectors, because Hudson notification and reduction of service fees are only afforded to agency fee payers; p. 8, warning letter.

803.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION SECURITY; AGENCY/FAIR SHARE FEE; DUES DEDUCTION/CHECK OFF
803.06000 – Religious Objection

The Association's requirement that in order to obtain a religious exemption an employee must show proof of membership in a religious body whose teachings oppose payment of dues or agency fees is a valid requirement; p. 5, warning letter. Six-month limitation period runs from the date the employee becomes aware that agency fee will be deducted from the paycheck and not the date that the agency fees were actually deducted from the paycheck; p. 2, dismissal letter. Hudson notices and reductions are not required for religious objectors, because Hudson notification and reduction of service fees are only afforded to agency fee payers; p. 8, warning letter. Requirement that payment be made in one lump sum to a charitable organization is arguably more onerous than the procedure of monthly dues deducted from emmployee's salary. Lump sum payment rule would organization is arguably more onerous than the procedure of monthly dues deducted from emmployee's salary. Lump sum payment rule would warning letter.

803.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION SECURITY; AGENCY/FAIR SHARE FEE; DUES DEDUCTION/CHECK OFF
803.07000 – Dues Deduction/Check Off

Requirement that payment be made in one lump sum to a charitable organization is arguably more onerous than the procedure of monthly dues deducted from employee's salary. Lump sum payment rule would tend to discourage employees from seeking or remaining religious objectors because of the financial burden it imposes; p. 6, warning letter.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

The burden is on the charging party to allege facts which both establish a prima facie violation and the timeliness of the charge; p. 2, dismissal letter.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

The burden is on the charging party to allege facts which both establish a prima facie violation and the timeliness of the charge; p. 2, dismissal letter.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period

Statue of limitation commences when party discovers that agency fee is due and owing and not the date when agency fees were actually deducted from paycheck. Six-month limitation period on allegation that employee was denied religious exemption runs from the date the employee becomes aware that agency fee will be deducted from the paycheck and not the date that the agency fees were actually deducted from the paycheck; p. 2, dismissal letter.

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.03000 – Burden of Proof; Weight of Evidence; Presumptions and Inferences; Affirmative Defenses

The burden is on the charging party to allege facts which both establish a prima facie violation and the timeliness of the charge; p. 2, dismissal letter.