Decision 1152H – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Dehler) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mount Diablo Education Association (Scott) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2127

SF-CO-45-H

Decision Date: May 29, 1996

Decision Type: PERB Decision

 * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mount Diablo Education Association (Scott) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2127 * * *

Description: Union Violated its duty of fair representation in handling employee’s grievance.

Disposition: Board found charging party established prima facie violation of duty of fair representation. Case remanded to General Counsel’s office for issuance of a complaint.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 20
Perc Index: 27102

Decision Headnotes

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration

* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mount Diablo Education Association (Scott) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2127, where the Board held that a violation of the duty of fair representation may be established based on inaction that occurred more than six months before a charge is filed, provided the inaction was part of the same course of conduct as inaction within the statutory limitations period. * * *

A pattern of failure to respond to the employer or employee during the grievance procedure established a prima facie violation of arbitrary failure by the exclusive representative to fairly represent the employee; p. 8.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.01000 – In General

* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mount Diablo Education Association (Scott) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2127, where the Board held that a violation of the duty of fair representation may be established based on inaction that occurred more than six months before a charge is filed, provided the inaction was part of the same course of conduct as inaction within the statutory limitations period. * * *

HEERA section 3563.2(a) bars PERB from issuing a complaint for conduct which occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; p. 5. The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct; p. 5.