Decision 2462C – Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (Oliver)

LA-CO-5-C

Decision Date: November 24, 2015

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 40
Perc Index: 89

Decision Headnotes

100.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; OPERATION OF EERA, DILLS (SEERA), HEERA
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.

100.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; OPERATION OF EERA, DILLS (SEERA), HEERA
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.

104.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD
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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
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.