Decision 2580S – Cal Fire Local 2881

SA-CO-494-S

Decision Date: August 17, 2018

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 43

Decision Headnotes

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

The law does not impose any obligation to represent employees, unless the exclusive
representative possesses the exclusive means by which such member can vindicate an individual
right, and the right in question derives from a collective bargaining agreement. (National
Education Association-Jurupa (Norman) (2014) PERB Decision No. 2371, pp. 14-15.) A Name-Clearing hearing and State Personnel Board appeal are statutory rather than collectively-bargained for. Therefore, a union owes employees no duty of fair representation in either of these contexts.

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.15000 – Privileged Communications

Although PERB follows federal precedent protecting certain communications under specified circumstances (see, e.g., State of California (Department of Corrections) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1104-S, pp. 16-20 [endorsing quasi-privileges/protections under Cook Paint and Varnish Co. v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 1981) 648 F.2d 712 and Johnnie's Poultry Co. (1964) 146 NLRB 770]; Colton Joint Unified School District/Rialto Unified School District/San Bernardino City Unified School District (1981) PERB Order No. Ad-113, p. 6 [endorsing protections under Berbiglia, Inc. (1977) 233 NLRB 1476]), the California Evidence Code presently includes no privilege protecting communications between a grievant and a non-attorney union representative. (American Airlines, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 881, 888–896.)