Decision 2046E – Alvord Educator's Association (Bussman)
LA-CE-1329-E
Decision Date: June 30, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charging Party alleged a violation of the duty of fair representation by failing to properly represent him in a challenge to the legality of certain contract provisions, and by failing to represent him regarding a change in teaching assignments.
Disposition: The Board adopted the Board agent’s dismissal, finding a portion of the charge untimely and finding the allegation regarding the change in teaching assignments did not state a prima facie case.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 128
Decision Headnotes
101.01000 – In General
Allegations that Respondent made defamatory comments about Charging Party, damaging his reputation, are not within PERB jurisdiction unless they also allege an independent violation of the EERA.
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
To establish a prima facie case for violation of the duty of fair representation the Charging Party must allege facts showing that the union’s actions were arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Where Charging Party complained that he communicated to union officials regarding an alleged improper assignment change, “to no avail,” but failed to allege any additional facts to demonstrate that the union abused its discretion or that its actions were without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment, the Charging Party failed to set forth a prima facie case for violation of the duty of fair representation.
1100.04000 – Amendments
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why new claims that the union provided false information to PERB, and new details regarding the claim for violation of the duty of fair representation, were not included in the original or amended charge, and should be considered for the first time on appeal.
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why new claims that the union provided false information to PERB, and new details regarding the claim for violation of the duty of fair representation, were not included in the original or amended charge, and should be considered for the first time on appeal.
1101.01000 – In General
In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. Charging Party was specifically informed by the union on January 30, 2007, of the denial of his request for representation. Therefore, the January 22, 2008, unfair practice filing was barred by the six-month statute of limitations. In the absence of any evidence that the California Teachers Association (CTA) was an agent of Respondent, communications between CTA and Charging Party, regarding the possibility of representation by CTA, do not impact computation of the statute of limitations on duty of fair representation claims against Respondent. In cases alleging retaliation for protected activity, the statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. Charging Party’s claim of retaliation filed January 22, 2008, based on conduct of which he was clearly aware on or prior to April 20, 2007, was therefore beyond the six-month statute of limitations.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
In the absence of any evidence that the independent union, California Teachers Association (CTA) was an agent of Respondent union, communications between Charging Party and CTA discussing the possibility of representation by CTA, have no effect on computation of the statute of limitations on duty of fair representation claims against the Respondent.
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why new claims that the union provided false information to PERB, and new details regarding the claim for violation of the duty of fair representation, were not included in the original or amended charge, and should be considered for the first time on appeal.
1109.01000 – In General
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause as to why new claims that the union provided false information to PERB, and new details regarding the claim for violation of the duty of fair representation, were not included in the original or amended charge, and should be considered for the first time on appeal.