Decision 2462C – Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (Oliver)
LA-CO-5-C
Decision Date: November 24, 2015
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged that her exclusive representative had violated its duty of fair representation by acting in a perfunctory fashion or in bad faith when processing a grievance challenging charging party’s termination from employment. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie case.
Disposition: The Board held that it had jurisdiction over the dispute, despite the absence of language in the Trial Court Act providing for a duty of fair representation. Because the duty of fair representation is the quid pro quo for exclusive representation, the absence of duty of fair representation language in the Trial Court Act does not indicate legislative intent to deprive PERB of jurisdiction to consider duty of fair representation cases brought by Trial Court employees. However, the Board affirmed the dismissal because the charging party had failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that her representative had acted arbitrarily, discriminatory or in bad faith in grievance-arbitration proceedings.
Perc Vol: 40
Perc Index: 89
Decision Headnotes
100.01000 – In General
Because the duty of fair representation is the quid pro quo for the exclusive representative’s right to employees, the absence of a duty of fair representation language in the Trial Court Act does not indicate legislative intent to deprive PERB of jurisdiction to consider duty of fair representation cases brought by Trial Court employees.
100.03000 – Purpose of the Act
Because the duty of fair representation is the quid pro quo for the exclusive representative’s right to employees, the absence of a duty of fair representation language in the Trial Court Act does not indicate legislative intent to deprive PERB of jurisdiction to consider duty of fair representation cases brought by Trial Court employees.
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)
Because the duty of fair representation is the quid pro quo for the exclusive representative’s right to employees, the absence of a duty of fair representation language in the Trial Court Act does not indicate legislative intent to deprive PERB of jurisdiction to consider duty of fair representation cases brought by Trial Court employees.
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
Because the duty of fair representation is the quid pro quo for the exclusive representative’s right to employees, the absence of a duty of fair representation language in the Trial Court Act does not indicate legislative intent to deprive PERB of jurisdiction to consider duty of fair representation cases brought by Trial Court employees. Misspellings or minor, non-prejudicial errors in a person’s title or job duties were not grounds for reversing dismissal of employee’s unfair practice charge alleging that her representative had violated its duty of fair representation. Amended charge, which alleged that arbitration procedure was contained in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between her representative and the Trial Court employer and that the matters raised in her charge overlapped with issues of a grievance that was subject to the arbitration procedure, was sufficient to demonstrate that the arbitration proceedings were part of a collectively-bargained grievance procedure to which the duty of fair representation attached rather than extra-contractual proceedings for which no such duty attaches. Board declined to adopt that portion of the dismissal letter concluding that the charge was deficient because it did not include a copy of the applicable MOU or allege facts showing that an arbitration hearing was pursued through a negotiated appeal process contained in the MOU.