Decision 2297M – Inlandboatmans Union of the Pacific

SF-CO-191-M

Decision Date: December 12, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
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.

1104.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ
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.

1104.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; PROCEDURE BEFORE ALJ
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.