Decision 2575M – Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.

Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice.