Decision 1856M – Modesto Irrigation District
SA-CE-384-M
Decision Date: September 1, 2006
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board affirmed the dismissal of an unfair practice charge in which the charging party alleged the District failed to provide sufficient notice for an election regarding an agency shop agreement.
Disposition: The charging party lacked standing because he was not a member of the class of employees allegedly harmed. However, even if the charging party had standing, he failed to prove a prima facie case of interference.
Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 1
Decision Headnotes
401.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case.
Totality of the circumstances did not provide sufficient evidence that the employer failed to adequately maintain posted notices, or that employees were unable to reach the polling locations during voting hours. Thus, there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of interference.
1100.03000 – Standing
An individual does not have standing to allege interference with protected rights if the employee is not a member of the class affected by the employer’s action.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Under PERB Regulation 32136, the Board may excuse a late filing for good cause. A party’s ignorance of PERB Regulations will not support a finding of good cause to excuse a late filing. Under PERB Regulation 32136, the Board may excuse a late filing for good cause. While the absence of a key employee may be sufficient to support a finding of good cause, the facts of this case did not support such a finding.