Decision 2261M – Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (Sahle)
Decision Date: May 8, 2012
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The ALJ found that SEIU had breached its duty of fair representation by failing to initiate or grieving the denial of a reclassification study on behalf of Sahle, a matter that was not included in the complaint. The complaint did allege that SEIU had breached the duty of fair representation by failing to produce a copy of a settlement agreement Sahle had entered into with his employer and by failing to respond to his inquiries. The ALJ found that SEIU had violated the MMBA as alleged in the complaint.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that SEIU did not breach its duty of fair representation because it did respond to Sahle’s inquiries and it did not have the document he sought. There was no agreement between Sahle and the employer guaranteeing a promotion, so SEIU did not breach any duty by failing to obtain or provide documentation of such an agreement. PERB refused to consider the unalleged violation regarding the reclassification study because respondent had insufficient notice that this violation was being litigated, the conduct was not intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint, the matter was not fully litigated, and the parties had no opportunity to examine and cross examine on the MOU provisions regarding reclassification.
Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 175
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
The preponderance of the evidence fails to support allegations that the union violated its duty of fair representation where it responded to its bargaining unit member’s inquiries and did not provide documents which it did not have or which did not exist.
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations
The Board will not consider an unalleged violation where: (1) the respondent had insufficient notice that the unalleged violation was being litigated; (2) the conduct was not intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint; (3) the matter was not fully litigated; and (4) the parties did not have an opportunity to examine and cross examine on the relevant MOU provision.