Opinion ID: 2376333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The PERB Decision

Text: The Executive Director of PERB, Julio Castillo, issued a decision dismissing appellant's complaint because it was not timely with respect to DHS and because it fail[ed] to state a basis for a claim [against her union] under the [Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act]. Mr. Castillo noted that PERB Rule 520.4 imposes a 120-day time limit on the filing of complaints and that, because appellant's complaint was filed 161 days after she received her final notice of removal, it was not timely as to DHS. As for appellant's claim against her union, Castillo stated that a union breaches its duty of fair representation only if the union's conduct [is] arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, or ... based on considerations that are irrelevant, invidious, or unfair. [4] Since appellant's complaint relie[d] solely on the fact that the union failed to file a grievance and assert[ed] no basis for attributing a prohibit[ed] motive to the union's failure to file a grievance, Castillo concluded that there was no allegation on which an unfair labor practice claim could be based. Appellant filed a petition in the Superior Court for review of the PERB decision. The court affirmed that decision for the reasons stated by Executive Director Castillo.