Decision 1882E – Service Employees International Union Local 99 (Jones)
LA-CO-1192-E
Decision Date: January 25, 2007
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board affirmed the dismissal of an unfair practice charge in which the charging party alleged SEIU denied his right to fair representation.
Disposition: SEIU did not deny the charging party his right to fair representation because SEIU’s decision to allow the step 4 grievance to go into abeyance was neither devoid of honest judgment nor made without a rational basis.
Decision Headnotes
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
The duty of fair representation imposed on an exclusive representative extends to grievance handling. In order to state a prima facie case for the breach of this duty, the charging party must demonstrate the exclusive representative’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation, 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. Although “mere negligence” does not typically constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation, it may support such a finding if the individual interest at stake is strong and the union’s failure to perform a ministerial act completely extinguishes the employee’s right to pursue his claim.
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
The duty of fair representation imposed on an exclusive representative extends to grievance handling. In order to state a prima facie case for the breach of this duty, the charging party must demonstrate the exclusive representative’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. In order to state a prima facie case of arbitrary conduct violating the duty of fair representation, 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. Although “mere negligence” does not typically constitute a breach of the duty of fair representation, it may support such a finding if the individual interest at stake is strong and the union’s failure to perform a ministerial act completely extinguishes the employee’s right to pursue his claim.