Decision 2198M – Alameda County Management Employees Association (Harper)
SF-CO-223-M
Decision Date: August 29, 2011
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged that the Alameda County Management Employees Association breached its duty of fair representation by failing to notify the charging party that her employer would not agree to include her position in the bargaining unit and by recommending in the course of disciplinary proceedings that charging party resolve the grievance by taking a severance package.
Disposition: The Board issued a decision dismissing the charge for failure to state a prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation, concluding that the charging party lacked standing and the duty of fair representation did not extend to extra-contractual remedies outside the union’s exclusive control.
Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 38
Decision Headnotes
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
An unrepresented employee seeking inclusion in the bargaining unit lacked standing to bring a duty of fair representation charge; the duty of fair representation extends only to bargaining unit employees.
800.04000 – Scope of Duty; Internal Union Affairs
The charge failed to allege a breach of the duty of fair representation based on union’s agreement to assist charging party at her disciplinary proceedings and recommendation that charging party resolve grievance by taking a severance package; an extra-contractual disciplinary hearing does not give rise to a duty of fair representation charge.
800.05000 – Mode or Adequacy of Representation/Advocacy
The charge failed to allege a breach of the duty of fair representation based on union’s agreement to assist charging party at her disciplinary proceedings and recommendation that charging party resolve grievance by taking a severance package; an extra-contractual disciplinary hearing does not give rise to a duty of fair representation charge.
800.06000 – Other
The charge failed to allege a breach of the duty of fair representation based on union’s agreement to assist charging party at her disciplinary proceedings and recommendation that charging party resolve grievance by taking a severance package; an extra-contractual disciplinary hearing does not give rise to a duty of fair representation charge; an unrepresented employee seeking inclusion in the bargaining unit lacked standing to bring a duty of fair representation charge; the duty of fair representation extends only to bargaining unit employees.
1100.03000 – Standing
An unrepresented employee seeking inclusion in the bargaining unit lacked standing to bring a duty of fair representation charge; the duty of fair representation extends only to bargaining unit employees. Individual employees lack standing to bring a unilateral change charge.
1101.01000 – In General
The six-month limitations period in cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely; where charging party was not given a timeframe by which she could expect a response from the union and instead was informed by union that historically the union was slow in processing inclusion requests, charging party had no reason to believe her inclusion request was not being processed until receipt of a letter from her employer in which she was so informed, and therefore her charge was timely.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
The six-month limitations period in cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely; where charging party was not given a timeframe by which she could expect a response from the union and instead was informed by union that historically the union was slow in processing inclusion requests, charging party had no reason to believe her inclusion request was not being processed until receipt of a letter from her employer in which she was so informed, and therefore her charge was timely.