Decision 1401E – Riverside County Office Teachers Association (Mc Alpine, et al.)

LA-CO-817-E

Decision Date: August 31, 2000

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 24
Perc Index: 31144

Decision Headnotes

505.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES
505.13000 – Other

Charge alleging that an employee felt intimidated by statement made by union president, where charge was refuted by employee, failed to present facts demonstrating the Association interfered with or threatened bargaining unit members; pp. 4-5, dismissal letter.

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

A conclusion that the Association acted without rational basis which does not set forth facts from which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the Association acted without rational basis is insufficient to state a prima facie case; p. 4, warning letter. The mere fact that charging parties were not satisfied with the agreement is insufficient to demonstrate a prima facie violation. The fact that the Association should have known the charging parties would be dissatisfied is also insufficient to demonstrate a breach of the duty of fair representation. The Association is not obligated to negotiate a specific provision for a group of unit members, nor did the Association fail to explain its rationale in reducing the amount the charging parties received. Nothing in the charge indicates the Association acted without rational basis; p. 5, warning letter. Allegation that the Association disparately treated charging parties by reducing their stipend while increasing the salaries of other teachers failed to explain how this violated the duty of fair representation. Association's conduct in making an agreement that favors some employees more than others does not violate the EERA; pp. 2-3, dismissal letter. It was unclear how a provision in the agreement which set up an advisory committee whose goal was to recommend salary adjustments violated the EERA, or demonstrated bad faith on the part of the Association. Even assuming the provision somehow extended the duration of the agreement beyond three years, the Association's failure to publicly notice this clause was not properly adjudicated as an unfair practice charge. As such, the allegation failed to demonstrate the Association breached its duty of fair representation; pp. 3-4 dismissal letter. Charging Parties lacked standing to allege that the District's proposal was a regressive proposal, or that the Association caused the District to engage in regressive bargaining, and allegation was dismissed. Moreover, the charge failed to provide any facts demonstrating the District violated the Act or that the Association caused the District to violate the Act. As such, the charge fails to state a prima facie violation; p. 4, dismissal letter.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.03000 – Negotiations

A conclusion that the Association acted without rational basis which does not set forth facts from which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the Association acted without rational basis is insufficient to state a prima facie case; p. 4, warning letter. The mere fact that charging parties were not satisfied with the agreement is insufficient to demonstrate a prima facie violation. The fact that the Association should have known the charging parties would be dissatisfied is also insufficient to demonstrate a breach of the duty of fair representation. The Association is not obligated to negotiate a specific provision for a group of unit members, nor did the Association fail to explain its rationale in reducing the amount the charging parties received. Nothing in the charge indicates the Association acted without rational basis; p. 5, warning letter. Allegation that the Association disparately treated charging parties by reducing their stipend while increasing the salaries of other teachers failed to explain how this violated the duty of fair representation. Association's conduct in making an agreement that favors some employees more than others does not violate the EERA; pp. 2-3, dismissal letter. It was unclear how a provision in the agreement which set up an advisory committee whose goal was to recommend salary adjustments violated the EERA, or demonstrated bad faith on the part of the Association. Even assuming the provision somehow extended the duration of the agreement beyond three years, the Association's failure to publicly notice this clause was not properly adjudicated as an unfair practice charge. As such, the allegation failed to demonstrate the Association breached its duty of fair representation; pp. 3-4 dismissal letter. Charging Parties lacked standing to allege that the District's proposal was a regressive proposal, or that the Association caused the District to engage in regressive bargaining, and allegation was dismissed. Moreover, the charge failed to provide any facts demonstrating the District violated the Act or that the Association caused the District to violate the Act. As such, the charge fails to state a prima facie violation; p. 4, dismissal letter.

801.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION
801.05000 – Union Threats; Violence

Charge alleging that an employee felt intimidated by statement made by union president, where charge was refuted by employee, failed to present facts demonstrating the Association interfered with or threatened bargaining unit members; pp. 4-5, dismissal letter.

1502.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; PUBLIC NOTICE
1502.01000 – In General

It was unclear how a provision in the agreement which set up an advisory committee whose goal was to recommend salary adjustments violated the EERA, or demonstrated bad faith on the part of the Association. Even assuming the provision somehow extended the duration of the agreement beyond three years, the Association's failure to publicly notice this clause was not properly adjudicated as an unfair practice charge. As such, the allegation failed to demonstrate the Association breached its duty of fair representation; pp. 3-4 dismissal letter.