Decision 2256E – Barstow College Faculty Association (Cauble)
LA-CO-1444-E
Decision Date: April 25, 2012
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged that the Barstow College Faculty Association breached its duty of fair representation by entering into a memorandum of understanding modifying the collective bargaining agreement regarding adjunct instructor evaluations without providing proper notice, requiring a quorum or giving the membership a vote pursuant to the bylaws.
Disposition: The Board upheld the dismissal of the charge for failure to state a prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation, concluding that the allegations concerned internal union affairs and that the charging party failed to establish that these internal union affairs had a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship or that the union’s bargaining conduct was lacking in good faith or honesty of purpose.
Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 167
Decision Headnotes
800.03000 – Negotiations
As a general rule, an exclusive representative enjoys a wide range of bargaining latitude; the duty of fair representation does not mean an employee organization is barred from making an agreement which may have an unfavorable effect on some members, nor is an employee organization obligated to bargain a particular item benefiting certain unit members; where charge alleged that charging party was not given proper notice of an item up for vote on an issue concerning the evaluation of faculty members, that the exclusive representative did not follow its rules relating to quorum and that he was not provided with an opportunity to vote, charge failed to establish that the union’s bargaining conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or lacking in good faith.
800.04000 – Scope of Duty; Internal Union Affairs
In order to state a prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation, a charging party must at a minimum include an assertion of facts from which it becomes apparent in what manner the exclusive representative’s action or inaction was without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment; the burden is on the charging party to show how an exclusive representative abused its discretion, and not on the exclusive representative to show how it properly exercised discretion; PERB will not review matters concerning internal union affairs unless they have a substantial impact on the relationship of unit members to their employer so as to give rise to the duty of fair representation; where charge alleged that charging party was not given proper notice of an item up for vote on an issue concerning the evaluation of faculty members, that the exclusive representative did not follow its rules relating to quorum and that he was not provided with an opportunity to vote, charge failed to allege how these internal union affairs had a substantial impact on the relationship of employees to their employer so as to give rise to a duty of fair representation.
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
Under PERB Regulation 32635, subdivision (a), the appeal must sufficiently place the Board and the respondent on notice of the issues raised on appeal; an appeal that merely reiterates facts alleged in the unfair practice charge, or does not reference the substance of the Board agent’s dismissal, fails to comply with PERB Regulation 32635, subdivision (a); where appeal failed to reference any portion of the Board agent’s determination or otherwise identify the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which the appeal was taken, the page or part of the dismissal to which the appeal was taken, or the ground for each issue stated, the appeal was subject to dismissal; unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new charge allegations or new supporting evidence under PERB Regulation 32635, subdivision (b); no good cause to consider on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence where dates of events alleged for the first time on appeal predate the dismissal of the charge and appeal provides no reason why these allegations could not have been included in the original or amended charges and why the new supporting evidence could not have been provided to the Board agent during the processing of the charge.
1109.01000 – In General
Under PERB Regulation 32635, subdivision (a), the appeal must sufficiently place the Board and the respondent on notice of the issues raised on appeal; an appeal that merely reiterates facts alleged in the unfair practice charge, or does not reference the substance of the Board agent’s dismissal, fails to comply with PERB Regulation 32635, subdivision (a); where appeal failed to reference any portion of the Board agent’s determination or otherwise identify the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which the appeal was taken, the page or part of the dismissal to which the appeal was taken, or the ground for each issue stated, the appeal was subject to dismissal; unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new charge allegations or new supporting evidence under PERB Regulation 32635, subdivision (b); no good cause to consider on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence where dates of events alleged for the first time on appeal predate the dismissal of the charge and appeal provides no reason why these allegations could not have been included in the original or amended charges and why the new supporting evidence could not have been provided to the Board agent during the processing of the charge.