Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (Crandell) (PERB 2202M)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

MICHAEL CRANDELL,
Charging Party, | Case No. SF-CO-202-M
Vv. PERB Decision No. 2202-M
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL September 15, 2011
UNION, LOCAL 1021,
Respondent.

Appearances: Michael Crandell, on his own behalf; Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by
Kerrianne R. Steele, Attorney, for Service Employees International Union, Local 1021.

Before Martinez, Chair; McKeag and Dowdin Calvillo, Members.
DECISION
MARTINEZ, Chair: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Michael Crandell (Crandell) of a Board agent’s dismissal
(attached) of Crandell’s unfair practice charge. The charge alleges that Service Employees
International Union, Local 1021 (SEIU) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)’ by
failing to grieve or arbitrate on Crandell’s behalf alleged camera-phone stalking activities by

his employer, the City and County of San Francisco (City).” The charge alleges that this

'VMMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq.

* The charge also alleges that SEIU failed to grieve or arbitrate Crandell’s termination
and failed to represent him in a post-termination civil service commission hearing. These
allegations are the subject of a second unfair practice charge Crandell filed against SEIU in
SF-CO-204-M. Accordingly, as noted below, the decision herein disposes of the issues arising
out of the camera-phone stalking allegations only. The allegations concerning Crandell’s
termination were previously disposed of by the Board’s decision on appeal of the dismissal of
the underlying charge in Case No. SF-CO-204-M. In that decision, Service Employees
International Union, Local 1021 (Crandell) (2011) PERB Decision No. 2169-M, the Board
adopted the warning and dismissal letters of the Board agent as the decision of the Board itself,

conduct violates PERB Regulation 32604.3 The Board agent dismissed the charge, finding that
it failed to state a prima facie case and was filed untimely.
We have reviewed Crandell's appeal, SEIU's response, the warning and dismissal
letters and the entire record in light
of
the relevant law. Based on this review, we find the
Board agent's warning and dismissal letters to be well-reasoned, free
of
prejudicial error and in
accordance with applicable law. Accordingly, the Board adopts the warning and dismissal
letters as the decision
of
the Board itself, with the following clarification.
Crandell notes in the appeal that he has two related but separate unfair practice
charges against SEIU. As confirmed by Crandell, the instant charge, SF-CO-202-M, arises
out
of
alleged camera-phone stalking activities by the City, whereas the second charge,
SF-CO-204-M, arises out
of
the City's termination
of
his employment. Crandell asserts that
"this is not the place to argue UPC SF-CO-204-M." We agree. Moreover, as explained in
footnote
2,
ante, the Board has since disposed
of
SF-CO-204-M. Accordingly, the Board
deems the decision herein to be confined to the issue whether SEIU breached its duty
of
fair
representation by failing to grieve or arbitrate on Crandell's behalf alleged camera-phone
stalking activities by the City. Therefore, SEIU' s assertions that Crandell lacked good cause to
raise new allegations regarding the termination process on appeal are not considered here as
those allegations are not germane to the issue before the Board in this case.
as supplemented by a discussion of the issue raised on appeal regarding Crandell's late-filed
amended charge, and dismissed the charge without leave to amend.
3 PERB regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CO-202-M is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members McKeag and Dowdin Calvillo joined in this Decision.
3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
1330 Broadway, Suite 1532
Oakland, CA 94612-2514
Telephone: (510) 622-1021
Fax:
(5
l
0)
622-1027
June 23, 2010
Michael Crandell
P.
0.
Box 423803
San Francisco, CA 94142
Re: 	Michael Crandell
v.
SEJU Local I 021
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CO-202-M ·
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Crandell:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June 10, 2009. Michael Crandell (Crandell or Charging Party)
alleges that SEHJ Local 1021 (SEIU or Union or Respondent) violated the Meyers-Milias-
Brown Act (MMBA or Act) 1 by failing to pursue a grievance in which Crandell alleged that
employees
of
the City and County
of
San Francisco (City) were conducting surveillance
of
him
and stalking him via cell-phone camera.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated April 21, 2010, that the
above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. Charging Party was advised that,
if
there were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained in that letter, the charge should be amended. Charging Party was further advised
that, unless the charge was amended to state a prima facie case or withdrawn prior to May
5,
2010, the charge would be dismissed.
On May 5,
201-0,
Charging Party filed an amended charge. Because the amended charge does
not cure the deficiencies discussed by the Warning Letter and does not state a prima facie case,
the charge is hereby dismissed based on the facts and reasons below and those set forth in the
April 21, 2010, Warning Letter.
Summary
of
Additional Facts
The amended charge alleges the following relevant facts, in addition to those alleged in the
initial charge.
alleges that December 10, 2008 was the last day for the City to respond to Crandell 's
third-level grievance. This, he argues, is the date PERB should use in calculating the
limitations period.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CO-202-M
June 23, 2010
Page 2
Crandell generally alleges that SEID, through its agent Keith Snodgrass (Snodgrass), failed
and refused to rectify Crandell's concerns about stalking via cell-phone camera, and that this
failure constitutes fraud or bad-faith representation. Crandell formerly was a steward
of
the
Union. 	Crandell contends that SEID failed to pursue grievances with respect to: (1) his
suspension from employment on October 4, 2008; (2) his termination on December 19, 2008;
and (3) camera-phone stalking which occurred from July 25, 2008 through December 19, 2008.
Crandell alleges that Snodgrass assured him, following his Skelly hearing on December 16,
2008, that Snodgrass would be contesting the termination. 	Crandell also alleges that Snodgrass
failed to open or read e-mail messages Crandell had sent Snodgrass pertaining to retaliatory
activity at a prior worksite on an unspecified date.
In a position statement dated June 17, 2010, SEIU provides a declaration from Snodgrass
stating that SEHJ had carefully reviewed the City's documentary evidence supporting its
suspension and subsequent termination
of
Crandell and that SEIU had determined that it did
not have any basis to contest these actions. 	Snodgrass then communicated this decision to
Crandell on three or four occasions in late December 2008 and early January 2009.
Statute
of
Limitations
As discussed in the Warning Letter, there is a six-month limitations period for charges filed
under the MMBA and, in this case, allegations occurring prior to December 10, 2008, are
untimely. 	(Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
v.
Public Employment
Relations Board (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072.) .Crandell alleges that SEIU failed to file a grievance
with respect to his suspension from employment on October 4, 2008. Crandell does not allege
that he did not know or should not have known, until December 10, 2008, or after, that further
assistance from the union was unlikely. (See, e.g., SEJU, United Healthcare Workers West
(Rivera) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2025-M.) Therefore, this allegation is untimely filed and
cannot form the basis
of
a prima facie case.
As recited in the Warning Letter, Crandell filed a grievance on September 10, 2008, regarding
his concerns about being stalked via cell-phone camera. He does not allege any additional
facts to establish that he did not know or should not have known until a later date that the
Union was not going to assist him in addressing these concerns with the employer.
Accordingly, these allegations are untimely as well.
Duty
of
Fair Representation
As discussed in the Warning Letter, under the MMBA, unions owe a duty
of
fair representation
to their members which requires them to refrain :from representing their members in a way that
is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. 	(Hussey
v.
Operating Engineers (1995) 35
Cal.App.4th 1213.) Here, Crandell alleges that SEIU failed to grieve his termination on
December 19, 2008. Although he makes general statements that the union acted fraudulently
or in bad faith when it failed to file this, and other, grievances, Crandell does not allege any
specific facts to show that SEIU's failure to file a grievance with respect to his termination was
arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

SF-CO-202-M
June 23, 2010
Page 3
SEIU affirmatively alleges that it made a carefully reasoned decision to not pursue grievances
over Crandell' s suspension and termination, based upon the documentary evidence provided to
the union by the City.2 A Union's decision to not represent an employee with respect to his
termination, based upon the employee's negative work history, is not a violation. (Service
Employees International Union, Local 790 (Fanene) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1513.)
Accordingly, Crandell has not alleged sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case that the
Union breached its duty
of
fair representation.
Crandell alleges that Snodgrass specifically assured him on December 16, 2008, that he would
be contesting Crandell's termination. As discussed in the Warning Letter, SEIU had no duty
to
represent Crandell in a termination hearing before the City's Civil Service Commission.
Moreover, SEIU makes the uncontradicted allegations that, on multiple subsequent occasions
in late December 2008 and early January 2009, the Union would not be challenging Crandell's
termination. A union may lawfully decline to represent a bargaining unit member with respect
to a grievance or arbitration, so long as its reasons are conveyed to the unit member. 	( Oakland
Education Association, CTA/NEA (Mingo) (1984) PERB Decision No. 447.)
Crandell's allegation that Snodgrass refused to open e-mail messages he had sent also does not
constitute a prima facie case
of
an unfair labor practice because Crandell has not alleged that
any harm resulted from this failure. 	A charging party must plead some harm or injury
in
order
to state a prima facie case. 	(California School Employees Association and its Local Chapter
No.
616 (Tornetta) (1985) PERB Decision No. 508.)
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,3 Charging Party may obtain a review
of
this dismissal
of
the
charge by filing an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service
of
this dismissal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32635, subd. (a).) Any document filed with the Board
must contain the case name and number, and the original and five (5) copies
of
all documents
must be provided to the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,§ 11020, subd. (a).)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the
close
of
business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet which meets the
2 A Board agent is not required to ignore undisputed facts provided by Respondent and
to only consider the facts provided by Charging Party. (Service Employees International
Union #790 (Adza) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1632-M.) Further, factually unsupported legal
conclusions in the charge need not be accepted as true. ( Charter Oak Unified School District
(1991) PERB Decision No. 873.)
3 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SF-CO-202-M
June 23, 2010
Page 4
requirements
of
PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the original,
together with the required number
of
copies and proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail. 	(Cal. Code
Regs, tit.
8,
§ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
§§
32090 and
32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If you file a timely appeal
of
the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies
of
a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
"ollon 1
	11
	•	
vv
1'ng
thf'	
..	
dater.f's,,,.";""'
r.f'f],,p
Clr'll'\PC>l
	(l'c,] 	RPCTQ
t1't	- 	c
	V.l.
	v.l.
v
.l.vV
V.l.
cuv
"".t-'.t-''-'~.l., \
~""''
rr\rlP	
~'-'~'-'
•~'-'b~,
,
.,
R
~,
§ 3?fi35
	--
	, subd •
(b))
•
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, and a "proof
of
service" must accompany each copy
of
a document served upon a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit.
8,
§ 32140 for the required
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32135, subd. (c).)
Extension
of
Time
,Ak
request for an extension
of
time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must be filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration
of
the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and,
if
known, the position of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall be accompanied by proof
of
service
of
the
request upon each party. (Cal. Code Regs, tit.
8,
§ 32132.)

SF-CO-202-M
June 23, 2010
Page 5
Final Date
If
no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
TAMI R. BOGERT
General
Counse.~
B y
Liura
lbavis
gional
Attorney
:.Attachment
cc: 	Kerianne R. Steele, Attorney

STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
San Francisco Regional Office
1330 Broadway, Suite 1532
Oakland, CA 94612-2514
Telephone: (510) 622-1021
Fax: (510) 622-1027
April 21, 2010
Michael Crandell
P.
0.
Box 423803
San Francisco, CA 94142
Re: 	Michael Crandell
v.
SEIU
Local 1021
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CO-202-M
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Crandell:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June 10, 2009. Michael Crandell (Crandell or Charging Party)
alleges that SEIU Local
1021
(SEIU or Union or Respondent) violated the Meyers-Milias-
Brown Act (MMBA or Act) 1 by failing to pursue a grievance in which Crandell alleged that
employees
of
the City and County
of
San Francisco (City) were conducting surveillance
of
him
and stalking him via cell phone camera.
Summary
of
Facts
The following facts are alleged.
On or about December 19, 2008, Crandell was terminated from his employment with the City.
It appears that Crandell had been employed in the City's Human Resources Department,
division of Workers' Compensation. It is assumed that Crandell was a member of a bargaining
unit exclusively represented by SEIU.
Crandell generally alleges that on numerous dates between July 25, 2008 and December 19,
2008, various employees and managers
of
the City conducted surveillance
of
Crandell and
stalked him at the workplace by using cell phones equipped with cameras. The individuals
Crandell believes conducted or colluded in the surveillance and/or stalking include: Tim
O'Brien (O'Brien), the Workers Compensation supervisor; Priscilla Morse (Morse), the
Workers' Compensation Director; Micki Callahan (Callahan), the Human Resources director,
and several staff members of the Human Resources department. In September 2008, Crandell
began wearing a hat or hooded jacket to deter the surveillance and stalking and to protect
himself from being photographed. Crandell also arranged boxes, a cardboard barrier and a
protective curtain around his work area to deter the surveillance and stalking. 	On
approximately September 2, 2008, Morse forcibly removed the curtain.
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. The text of the
MMBA and PERB Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CO-202-M
April21,2010
Page 2
Crandell alleges that
on
September 10, 2008, he filed a first level grievance against
O'Brien
and Morse complaining that O'Brien and Morse were conducting surveillance and stalking him
via cell phone camera. The grievance is signed by Crandell. Union stewards Digna Bautista
and Penny Fernandes refused to sign and process the grievance, however, they faxed it to SEIU
Field Representative Keith Snodgrass (Snodgrass.)
On October 24, 2008, Morse sent Crandell a letter denying the grievance, stating that the City
had not received the grievance until October 21, 2008 and citing to the Memorandum
of
Understanding (MOU) between the City and SEIU which provides that "Only the Union shall
have the right on behalf
of
a ... employee
to
grieve the discipline or discharge action." Morse
states that Crandell' s allegations concerning the surveillance and stalking are "completely
untrue." Morse also states that during a meeting on September 30, 2008, Morse showed
Crandell that her cell phone does not have a camera feature.
Crandell alleges that Snodgrass stated that he had delayed submitting the grievance because he
wanted to consult with the union's attorneys. He further alleges, "the delayed submission was
beyond the 14 days required for submission. Ho,vever, the practice was ongoing."
On October 31, 2008, Crandell obtained unspecified confirmation that O'Brien was using a
camera phone and advised Snodgrass to pursue the grievance.
On November 7, 2008, Crandell filed a level two grievance, which the City denied on
November 13, 2008.
On November 24, 2008, Crandell filed a level three grievance. As
of
December 10, 2008, he
had not received a response.
In December 2008, Crandell advised Snodgrass to pursue arbitration, but did not receive a
response from the Union.
On December 19, 2008, Crandell was terminated.
On April 20, 2009, no Union representation was present at the post-termination Civil Service
hearing regarding future employability, for which Charging Party submitted a report.
In 2009, no post-termination arbitration was provided by the Union and calls to Snodgrass and
Jeff Chapman, an SEIU representative, were not returned.
On April 13, 2010, the Union filed a position statement in response to the unfair practice
charge. Therein, the Union makes the uncontradicted allegations that it did not sponsor
Crandell' s grievance because it deemed the grievance to be frivolous, and that Crandell
apparently filed on his own behalf. The Union contends that Crandell's allegations suggest, at
most, that the Union forwarded the grievance to the employer at Crandell 's behest. 	The Union
further makes the uncontradicted allegations that appeals of restrictions on future
employability are processed under the City's Civil Service Rules, not under the MOU between

SF-CO-202-M
April 21, 2010
Page 3
the City and SEIU. The Civil Service Commission's appeals procedure is independent
of
the
MOU grievance procedure and provides a separate remedy. Therefore, SEIU does not control
the exclusive means to an employee's remedy under the Civil Service Rules.
Statute
of
Limitations
PERB
is
prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged
unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of
the charge. 	(Coachella
Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
v.
Public Employment Relations
Board
(2005) 35
Cal.4th 1072.) The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should
have known,
of
the conduct underlying the charge. 	(Gavilan Joint Community College District
(1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.)2 A charging party bears the burden
of
demonstrating that
the charge
is
timely filed. 	(Tehachapi Unified School District (1993) PERB Decision No.
1024; State
of
California (Department
of
Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.)
In Saddleback Valley Unified School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 558, the Board held
that the six months statute
of
limitations period provided by the Educational Employment
Relations Act "is to be computed by excluding the day the alleged misconduct took place and
including the last day." Thus, where the school employer adopted a proposal on June 20, 1984,
the Board calculated that "the six-month period started on June 21, 1984, the day after the
school board adopted the proposal, and ended at the close of business on December 20, 1984."
(Ibid.; see also California State University, Fullerton (1986) PERB Decision No. 605-H.) The
same method
of
calculation should be applied to the statute
of
limitations under the MMBA.
The instant charge was filed on June 10, 2009. Therefore, allegations occurring prior to
December 10, 2008, are untimely. Crandell alleges that he filed a grievance regarding the
employer's surveillance and stalking via cell phone camera on September 10, 2008, which the
employer denied on October 24, 2008. Crandell further appears to allege that the Union
delayed submitting the grievance, although the documents show that Crandall, not the Union,
submitted the grievance. 	Crandell also alleges that on October 31, 2008, he "advised
Snodgrass to pursue the grievance" and that on an unspecified date in December 2008 Crandell
advised Snodgrass to pursue arbitration. 3 To the extent that these allegations might constitute a
prima facie charge of an unfair practice by the Union, they are untimely filed.
- When interpreting the MMBA, it is appropriate to take guidance from cases
interpreting the National Labor Relations Act and California labor relations statutes with
parallel provisions. (Fire Fighters Union
v.
City a/Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
3 It cannot be determined from the facts alleged whether this allegation occurred within
the limitations period, i.e., on or after December 10, 2008. Failure to allege the specific date(s)
on which unlawful conduct allegedly occurred precludes finding a charge timely filed. 	( City
of
Santa Barbara (2004) PERB Decision No. 1628-M.)

SF-CO-202-M
April21,2010
Page 4
Duty
of
Fair Representation
While the MMBA does not expressly impose a statutory duty
of
fair representation upon
employee organizations, the courts have held that "unions owe a duty
of
fair representation to
their members, and this requires them to refrain from representing their members arbitrarily,
discriminatorily, or in bad faith." (Hussey
v.
Operating Engineers (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th
1213.) In Hussey, the court further held that the duty
of
fair representation is not breached
by
mere negligence and that a union is to be "accorded wide latitude in the representation
of
its
members
...
absent a showing
of
arbitrary exercise
of
the union's power."
In International Association
of
Machinists (Attard) (2002) PERB Decision No. 14 7 4-M, the
Board determined that it is appropriate in duty
of
fair representation cases to apply precedent
developed under the other acts administered by the Board. The Board noted that its decisions
in such cases, including Reed District Teachers Association, CTAINEA (Reyes) (1983)
PERB
Decision No. 332 and American Federation
of
State, County and Municipal Employees,
Local 2620 (Moore) (1988) PERB Decision No. 683-S, are consistent with the approach
of
both Hussey and federal precedent (Vaca
v.
Sipes (1967) 386 U.S. 171).
With regard to when "mere negligence" might constitute arbitrary conduct, the Board observed
in Coalition
of
University Employees (Buxton) (2003) PERB Decision No. 1517-H that, under
federal precedent, a union's negligence breaches the duty
of
fair representation "in cases in
which the individual interest at stake is strong and the
union's
failure to perform a ministerial
act completely extinguishes the employee's right to pursue his claim." (Quoting Dutrisac
v.
Caterpillar Tractor
Co.
(9th Cir. 1983) 749 F.2d 1270, at p. 1274; see also, Robesky
v.
Quantas Empire Airways Limited (9th Cir. 1978) 573 F.2d 1082.)
Thus, in order to state a prima facie violation
of
the duty
of
fair representation under the
MMBA, a charging party must at a minimum include an assertion
of
facts from which
it
becomes apparent in what manner the exclusive representative's action or inaction was without
a rational basis or devoid
of
honest judgment. (International Association
of
Machinists
(Attard), supra, PERB Decision No. 1474-M.) The burden is on the charging party to
show
how an exclusive representative abused its discretion, and not on the exclusive representative
to show how it properly exercised its discretion. (United Teachers - Los Angeles (Wyler)
(1993) PERB Decision No. 970.)
Crandell does not allege any facts which show that SEIU's conduct towards him was arbitrary,
discriminatory, or in bad faith. 	As discussed above, the majority
of
his allegations are
untimely filed. Assuming, arguendo, that the allegations are timely filed, they do not support a
prima facie case. Crandell essentially alleges that 	filed a grievance on September 10, 2008,
which the employer denied on October 24, 2008. It appears from the facts alleged that the
Union did not support the grievance, but there is no showing that the Union breached its duty
of fair representation in deciding not to pursue the grievance. 	It appears that in December
2008, the Union decided not to take the grievance to arbitration. There is no requirement that a
union pursue a grievance which it believes will not be successful and a union's mere failure to
pursue a grievance through the arbitration process is not a breach of its duty of fair

SF-CO-202-M
April 21, 2010
Page 5
representation. (California Faculty Association (Wunder) (2007) PERB Decision No. 1889-H;
United Teachers
of
Los Angeles (2005) PERB Decision No. 1781.)
Crandell further alleges that the Union did not provide him with representation at his post-
termination hearing before the City's Civil Service hearing on April 20, 2009. A union's duty
of
fair representation is limited to contractually based remedies under the union's exclusive
control. (East Side Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Hernandez) (1997) PERB Decision
No. 1223.) Here, Crandell pursued a non-contractual remedy with the City's Civil Service
Commission. The Union makes the uncontradicted allegation that it does
not
exclusively
control an employee's means for pursuing this remedy. Accordingly, proceedings before the
City's Civil Service Commission are not covered by SEIU' s duty
of
fair representation and
Crandell does not state a prima facie case that the union breached its duty.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case.4
If
there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, Charging Party may amend the charge. The amended charge should
be
prepared on a standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended
Charge, contain all the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty
of
perjury by an authorized agent
of
Charging Party. The amended charge must have the case
number written on the top right hand corner
of
the charge form. 	The amended charge
must
be
served on the Respondent's representative and the original proof
of
service must be filed with
PERB. ff an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on or before May 5, 2010,5
PERB will
dismiss your charge. If you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Laura Davis
Regional Attorney
LD
4 In Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, the Board
explained that a prima facie case is established where the Board agent is able to make
"a
determination that the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and that the
charging party is capable
of
providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.
Consequently, where the investigation results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be
issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing." (Ibid.)
5 A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. 	(PERB Regulation 32135.)