Decision 1458E – Sacramento City Teachers Association (Marsh)
SA-CO-448-E
Decision Date: August 28, 2001
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board dismissed the unfair practice charge, which alleged that the employee organization breached its duty of fair representation by failing to properly represent the charging party in a grievance against the employer.
Disposition: Dismissed. The charge fails to provide information demonstrating that the union’s actions were without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment; also, PERB lacks the authority to enforce collective bargaining agreements.
Perc Vol: 25
Perc Index: 32107
Decision Headnotes
102.03000 – Enforcement of Settlement Agreements and Contracts 3541.5(b); 3514.5(b); 3563.2(b)
Charging party alleged the Association failed to comply with the provisions of the CBA. However, he failed to present facts demonstrating an unfair practice under the EERA. As a result, the Board does not have the authority to enforce the CBA between the Association and the District; p. 7, warning letter.
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
In order to state a prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation, charging party must show that the respondent's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. A charging party must at a minimum include an assertion of sufficient facts from which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the exclusive representative's action or inaction was without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment; p. 6, warning letter.
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
The duty of fair representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance handling; p. 6, warning letter.
1100.04000 – Amendments
Statute of limitations for a new allegation contained in an amended charge begins to run based on filing date of amended charge not original charge.
1101.02000 – Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine
Statute of limitations for a new allegation contained in an amended charge begins to run based on filing date of amended charge not original charge.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. The charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. For an allegation of the breach of the duty of fair representation, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the employee, acting with reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely; p. 4, dismissal letter. Statute of limitations for a new allegation contained in an amended charge begins to run based on filing date of amended charge not original charge.
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires that an unfair practice charge include a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice." The charging party's burden includes alleging the "who, what, when, where and how" of an unfair practice. Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. From the information provided it was not possible to determine what section(s) of EERA was violated; pp. 5-6, warning letter.