Decision 2295M – City and County of San Francisco (Department of Aging and Adult Services)

SF-CE-829-M

Decision Date: November 30, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
201.01000 – In General

In-home supportive services public authority arguably has a substantial interest case or will contribute substantially to a just resolution of the case and is therefore properly joined as a party to charge filed against county.

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
201.04000 – Joint, Single or Dual Employers

In-home supportive services public authority arguably has a substantial interest case or will contribute substantially to a just resolution of the case and is therefore properly joined as a party to charge filed against county.

803.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION SECURITY; AGENCY/FAIR SHARE FEE; DUES DEDUCTION/CHECK OFF
803.01000 – In General

The proper respondent in an action to challenge the amount of an agency fee deduction is the union or exclusive representative. Therefore, charge alleging improper collection of agency fee should have named exclusive representative, rather than employer, as respondent.

803.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION SECURITY; AGENCY/FAIR SHARE FEE; DUES DEDUCTION/CHECK OFF
803.04000 – Employer Liability

The proper respondent in an action to challenge the amount of an agency fee deduction is the union or exclusive representative. Therefore, charge alleging improper collection of agency fee should have named exclusive representative, rather than employer, as respondent.