Decision 1814S – CDF Firefighters (Pittman)
SA-CO-258-S
Decision Date: February 7, 2006
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The unfair practice charge alleged that the union violated the Dills Act by a former president’s interference with Pittman’s right to pay dues, telling him that the union was unable to process his membership unless deductions were made from his paycheck and canceling his membership during the appeal of his termination. The charge also alleged that the current president interfered with Pittman’s pursuit of the charges against the former president and allowing the Hearing Committee to retaliate against him for filing the charge, the Hearing Committee interfering with Pittman’s rights by removing him as a director of the San Benito-Monterey Chapter and expelling him from membership for filing internal charges against the former president.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie case as to each of the allegations. In discrimination charges filed against employee organizations based on internal union activity, the charge must demonstrate that the internal union conduct had an impact on employer-employee relations. In addition, the adverse action taken by the employee organization must have some impact on employer-employee relations. The charge failed to demonstrate that there was any impact on employer-employee relations.
Perc Vol: 30
Perc Index: 58
Decision Headnotes
801.01000 – In General
A charging party must specifically describe why an internal union procedure or its application is unreasonable. In this case, the charging party failed to do so. In discrimination charges filed against employee organizations based on internal union activity, the charge must demonstrate that the internal union conduct had an impact on employer-employee relations. In addition, the adverse action taken by the employee organization must have some impact on employer-employee relations. In this case, there was no impact on the employer-employee relations. The test under Dills Act section 3515.5 only applies to an employee who has been suspended or expelled from union membership.
801.03000 – Employee Right to Participate; Improper Discipline or Refusal to Admit to Membership
A charging party must specifically describe why an internal union procedure or its application is unreasonable. In this case, the charging party failed to do so. The test under Dills Act section 3515.5 only applies to an employee who has been suspended or expelled from union membership.
801.04000 – Union Rules and Discipline in General; Union Dues and Fees; Fines, Assessments, Etc.
A charging party must specifically describe why an internal union procedure or its application is unreasonable. In this case, the charging party failed to do so. In discrimination charges filed against employee organizations based on internal union activity, the charge must demonstrate that the internal union conduct has an impact on employer-employee relations. In addition, the adverse action taken by the employee organization must have some impact on employer-employee relations. In this case, there was no impact on the employer-employee relations. The test under Dills Act section 3515.5 only applies to an employee who has been suspended or expelled from union membership.