Decision 2150E – United Teachers of Los Angeles (Thomas)

LA-CO-1415-E

Decision Date: December 13, 2010

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 35
Perc Index: 13

Decision Headnotes

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case

Unfair practice charge was untimely filed. However, even if timely filed, the charge failed to establish a prima facie case. The union has the discretion whether or not to pursue a grievance. Refusal to pursue a grievance the union believes is unmeritorious is not a violation, as long as the refusal is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. It is the charging party’s burden to allege facts which demonstrate that the refusal was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Where charging party failed to do so the charge failed to establish a prima facie case for breach of the duty of fair representation.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration

Unfair practice charge was untimely filed. However, even if timely filed, the charge failed to establish a prima facie case. The union has the discretion whether or not to pursue a grievance. Refusal to pursue a grievance the union believes is unmeritorious is not a violation, as long as the refusal is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. It is the charging party’s burden to allege facts which demonstrate that the refusal was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Where charging party failed to do so the charge failed to establish a prima facie case for breach of the duty of fair representation.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

Where charging party was aware that the union declined to support or assist her with her grievance, the limitations period began to run. Unfair practice charge filed approximately 15 months later was untimely. PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to “any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.” The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. Board regulations allow for agents to provide technical assistance, not legal representation or interpretations of law, to complainants. Charging party’s claim that the limitations period should be extended because she spoke with a PERB agent within the six month statute of limitations, regarding her work complaints, and was not advised that she might have a claim against the union is without merit. Charging party bears the burden to identify the respondent and allege facts to state a prima facie violation of the Act.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.01000 – In General

Where charging party was aware that the union declined to support or assist her with her grievance, the limitations period began to run. Unfair practice charge filed approximately 15 months later was untimely. PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to “any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.” The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. Charging party’s claim that the limitations period should be extended because she spoke with a PERB agent within the six-month statute of limitations, regarding her work complaints, and was not advised that she might have a claim against the union is without merit. Charging party bears the burden to identify the respondent and allege facts to state a prima facie violation of the Act. Board regulations allow for agents to provide technical assistance, not legal representation or interpretations of law, to complainants.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period

Where charging party was aware that the union declined to support or assist her with her grievance, the limitations period began to run. Unfair practice charge filed approximately 15 months later was untimely. PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to “any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.” The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. Charging party’s claim that the limitations period should be extended because she spoke with a PERB agent within the six-month statute of limitations, regarding her work complaints, and was not advised that she might have a claim against the union is without merit. Charging party bears the burden to identify the respondent and allege facts to state a prima facie violation of the Act. Board regulations allow for agents to provide technical assistance, not legal representation or interpretations of law, to complainants.