Decision 1289E – United Teachers of Los Angeles (Seliga)

LA-CO-768

Decision Date: October 8, 1998

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description: Employee appealed dismissal of her unfair practice charge against the Union for falling to represent her.

Disposition: Dismissed. No violation of duty of fair representation found.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 22
Perc Index: 29171

Decision Headnotes

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.04000 – Scope of Duty; Internal Union Affairs

Failure to set aside Chapter Chair election is a purely internal union affair which does not have a substantial impact on the employment relationship and does not give rise to duty of fair representation; the fact that employee's principal felt free to intimidate her as a result of union's decision does not demonstrate impact; p. 6, dismissal letter.

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

Charging party bears burden of proving that charge is timely filed - specific dates of violation must be alleged to meet burden; p. 4, warning letter.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case

In order to state a prima facie case for violation of the duty of fair representation, charging party must allege facts demonstrating that Association's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith; p. 5, warning letter. Failure to set aside Chapter Chair election is a purely internal union affair which does not have a substantial impact on the employment relationship and does not give rise to duty of fair representation; the fact that employee's principal felt free to intimidate her as a result of union's decision does not demonstrate impact; p. 6, dismissal letter.

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

Refusal of grievance committee to pursue grievance to arbitration because it determined that there was no contract violation did not state a violation; p. 4, dismissal letter. Union settlement of a grievance contrary to grievant's wishes do not necessarily demonstrate a DFR.