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

SF-CO-387-M

Decision Date: June 28, 2018

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 22

Decision Headnotes

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts

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.

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.03000 – Enforcement of Settlement Agreements and Contracts 3541.5(b); 3514.5(b); 3563.2(b)

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.

202.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS
202.02000 – Exclusive Representatives

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.

202.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS
202.04000 – Agents (See also 1400)

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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case

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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration

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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.03000 – Negotiations

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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.06000 – Other

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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

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.

1102.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION
1102.02000 – Post Arbitration; Repugnancy

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.

1102.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION
1102.03000 – Other

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.

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.01000 – In General/Exclusive Initial Jurisdiction-Deferral to Arbitration; Deference by Reviewing Courts

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.

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.03000 – Enforcement of Settlement Agreements and Contracts 3541.5(b); 3514.5(b); 3563.2(b)

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.

202.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS
202.02000 – Exclusive Representatives

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.

202.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS
202.04000 – Agents (See also 1400)

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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case

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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.02000 – Grievance Handling/Contract Administration

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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.03000 – Negotiations

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.

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.06000 – Other

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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

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.

1102.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION
1102.02000 – Post Arbitration; Repugnancy

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.

1102.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION
1102.03000 – Other

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.