t
recommended ruling on IUP's motion to dismiss filed in this case,
a hearing officer for the Board noted that " [tlhe duty to hold a @
ratification vote is part of the union's duty to the employees it
represents."17
Regarding the ratification process for state
bargaining units, the Act and the Rules require only that the
ratification vote be by secret ballot. The Act and the Rules do
not outline the means of publication of the agreement Is terms, the
precise form of the notice to be given to the public employees, nor
procedures to be followed in conducting the ratification election.
The Board is reluctant to impose its judgment where an employee
organization's actions do not represent the most desirable method
of contract ratification from the point of view of all union
members. l8
Nor will the Board interfere where the union's
procedures are not so arbitrary and inadequate as to deny the
employees the meaningful exercise of their right to ratify, i.e.,
where there is not a breach of the duty of fair representation.
Lastly, it must be decided whether IUP committed a prohibited
practice by failing to ratify the tentative agreement prior to
March 15, 1987. While it has already been determined that the
requirements concerning the timing of ratification elections
1710wa United Professionals, 88 H.O. 3475.
18 See aenerallv, Bauman v. Presser, 117 LRRM 2393 (D.D.C.
1984); Davev v. Fitzsimmons, 413 F.Supp. 670, 92 LRRM
2130 (D.D.C. 1976).
