Decision 2297M – Inlandboatmans Union of the Pacific
SF-CO-191-M
Decision Date: December 12, 2012
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge and complaint alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation in handling a grievance.
Disposition: The Board upheld the dismissal of the charge and complaint for failure to establish that the union’s conduct was without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment.
Perc Vol: 37
Perc Index: 135
Decision Headnotes
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
Fact that attorney represented union in instant proceeding concerning allegations of violation of duty of fair representation has no bearing on whether union previously violated duty of fair representation in its handling of grievance. Fact that union chose to provide another representative to handle employee’s dispute does not establish violation of duty of fair representation. Given the wide latitude accorded a union in the representation of its members, the evidence presented did not establish a breach of the duty of fair representation with respect to handling of grievance over placement of employee on non-dispatch list. Union participated actively in attempting to resolve the dispute between employee and employer. While employee may have disagreed with union’s strategy in attempting to obtain a mediated reinstatement, evidence failed to establish that union’s conduct was “without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment.” Union’s decision to withdraw representation based upon its belief that employee’s conduct made further success unlikely had a rational basis and there is no evidence that it was otherwise arbitrary or based on invidious discrimination.
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration
Given the wide latitude accorded a union in the representation of its members, the evidence presented did not establish a breach of the duty of fair representation with respect to handling of grievance over placement of employee on non-dispatch list. Union participated actively in attempting to resolve the dispute between employee and employer. While employee may have disagreed with union’s strategy in attempting to obtain a mediated reinstatement, evidence failed to establish that union’s conduct was “without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment.” Union’s decision to withdraw representation based upon its belief that employee’s conduct made further success unlikely had a rational basis and there is no evidence that it was otherwise arbitrary or based on invidious discrimination.
800.05000 – Mode or Adequacy of Representation/Advocacy
Given the wide latitude accorded a union in the representation of its members, the evidence presented did not establish a breach of the duty of fair representation with respect to handling of grievance over placement of employee on non-dispatch list. Union participated actively in attempting to resolve the dispute between employee and employer. While employee may have disagreed with union’s strategy in attempting to obtain a mediated reinstatement, evidence failed to establish that union’s conduct was “without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment.” Union’s decision to withdraw representation based upon its belief that employee’s conduct made further success unlikely had a rational basis and there is no evidence that it was otherwise arbitrary or based on invidious discrimination.
1104.01000 – In General; Conduct of Hearing
ALJ did not fail to consider evidence presented at hearing and did not err in analysis of evidence presented.
1104.07000 – Bias or Prejudice/Motion to Disqualify
Claim that ALJ should have recused himself because he ruled in favor of the employer in a prior proceeding rejected, where charging party failed to provide any facts indicating that, by reason of prejudice, ALJ was unable to give a fair and impartial consideration of the merits of the instant case.