Decision 1084E – San Francisco Community College District Federation of Teachers (Kidd and Hendricks)
SF-CO-466
Decision Date: February 21, 1995
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Union violated its duty of fair representation when it refused to consider request to modify union’s internal rules.
Disposition: Dismissed. Internal union affairs outside PERB’s jurisdiction.
Perc Vol: 19
Perc Index: 26052
Decision Headnotes
101.03000 – NLRA/LMRDA Precedent
PERB is without jurisdiction to enforce the federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA); p. 3; p. 2, warning letter.
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes
PERB is without jurisdiction to enforce the federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA); p. 3; p. 2, warning letter.
800.04000 – Scope of Duty; Internal Union Affairs
Matters concerning internal union affairs are immune from PERB review, unless they have a substantial impact on the relationships of unit members to their employers so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation violation, or involve retaliation for protected activity; p. 2, warning letter. In CSEA (Parisot) (1983) PERB Decision No. 280, the Board adopted the retaliation exception to the general rule that the Board will not inquire into the internal affairs of an employee organization; p. 3.
806.02000 – Internal Union Procedures
Matters concerning internal union affairs are immune from PERB review, unless they have a substantial impact on the relationships of unit members to their employers so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation violation, or involve retaliation for protected activity; p. 2, warning letter. In CSEA (Parisot) (1983) PERB Decision No. 280, the Board adopted the retaliation exception to the general rule that the Board will not inquire into the internal affairs of an employee organization; p. 3.
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
It is unnecessary and inappropriate for the Board to consider Charging Party's arguments which respond to Respondent's statements to the Board agent during the investigation because statement is properly excluded from the Board's record and it was not addressed in the warning and dismissal letters.
1107.02000 – Weight Given to ALJ’s Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
It is unnecessary and inappropriate for the Board to consider Charging Party's arguments which respond to Respondent's statements to the Board agent during the investigation because statement is properly excluded from the Board's record and it was not addressed in the warning and dismissal letters.