Decision 1487E – California School Employees Association and its Chapter 77 (Vincelet)
SA-CO-451-E
Decision Date: June 28, 2002
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged that the California School Employees Association and its Chapter 77 violated EERA by denying Vincelet “due process” when it allegedly prevented her from receiving a fair hearing before an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings and failed to inform her of the existence of PERB so that she could meet EERA’s six- month filing deadline.
Disposition: Dismissal of the charge was affirmed. The Board agent correctly found that most of the conduct underlying the unfair practice charge occurred outside EERA’s six-month limitations period and that the alleged conduct occurring within the statutory period failed to state a prima facie case of violation of EERA.
Perc Vol: 26
Perc Index: 33097
Decision Headnotes
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
Allegations that union failed to provide adequate representation at internal District administrative personnel hearing and that union failed to notify charging party of PERB’s existence, filing requirements, and deadlines failed to state a prima facie case because duty of fair representation is limited to contractual remedies under union’s exclusive control.
800.04000 – Scope of Duty; Internal Union Affairs
Allegations that union failed to provide adequate representation at internal District administrative personnel hearing and that union failed to notify charging party of PERB’s existence, filing requirements, and deadlines failed to state a prima facie case because duty of fair representation is limited to contractual remedies under union’s exclusive control.
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
Charging party’s new evidence was not considered by the Board because she failed to show good cause or any rationale why it hadn’t been presented to the Board agent.
1101.01000 – In General
Charging party’s allegation that union gave her faulty information regarding district’s ability to call witnesses at administrative hearing was untimely because it occurred outside six-month limitations period.
1105.19000 – Newly Discovered Evidence
Charging party’s new evidence was not considered by the Board because she failed to show good cause or any rationale why it hadn’t been presented to the Board agent.
1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
Charging party’s new evidence was not considered by the Board because she failed to show good cause or any rationale why it hadn’t been presented to the Board agent.