This decision was issued back in November but still worth noting. The decision involved an unfair practice charge alleging a violation of the duty of fair representation. Normally, this decision would have been designated non-precedential. However, the Board designated this case precedential because it was the first one recognizing a duty of fair representation under the Trial Court Act. Although nothing in the Trial Court Act imposes a duty of fair representation on the exclusive representative, PERB noted that under the MMBA, such a duty has been found to exist as the “quid pro quo for the granting of exclusive representational rights to employee organizations.” Here, PERB held that the same reasoning justified imposing a duty of fair representation under the Trial Court Act.
Comments:
- PERB’s reasoning for extending a DFR to the Trial Court Act applies equally to the other collective bargaining statutes administered by PERB. So I think it’s safe to assume that there is a DFR anytime there is an exclusive representative.
This entry was posted in PERB Decision.
Previous post: Friedrichs v. CTA: Justice Scalia’s Passing Changes Everything