Andrew H. Baker
Specializing in public and private sector labor law.
Primary Geographic Area: San Francisco Bay Area
Email: email@example.comStanford University (1978) B.A. University of California School of Law, Berkeley (1982) J.D.
- Member: California State Bar (1982), United States District Courts for the Northern and Eastern Districts, United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit
- Executive Committee Member, Labor and Employment Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco (2003-present; Chair, 2012 – 2014)
- Field Attorney, National Labor Relations Board , Region 20 (1984-1988)
- Associate Attorney, Bunch & White (1982-1984)
- Clerk for the Hon. William McCusick, Chief Justice, Maine Supreme Court (1981)
- Chapter Editor, Discipline and Discharge in Arbitration (BNA, Third Ed., 2015)
- Panelist, Preparing for Grievance Arbitration, ABA Labor & Employment Law Section (2014)
Representative cases handled by Andrew Baker
YP Western Directory, 133 LA 1307 (2014). Employer did not have just cause to discharge employee accused of moonlighting while on disability, despite contention that employee—who had 20 years of service and apparent discipline-free record—made Facebook postings showing that he was working on advertising campaign for investment company, where nothing contradicts employee’s testimony that he was customer of company, and he was not given opportunity to explain situation.
Paulsen v. Teamsters Local 856 (Cal. Court of Appeal, 2011). In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeal agreed with the union that if any county or city employee covered by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) claims that the union breached the duty of fair representation, the employee must file an unfair practice charge with PERB rather than a lawsuit in court. Claims for unpaid wages as compensation for a union’s breach of the duty of fair representation also are considered unfair practice charges within PERB’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Alameda County Industries and Teamsters Local 70, 123 LA 1071 (2006). Employer violated collective-bargaining agreement when it placed three drivers on “non-disciplinary unpaid leave” because they were uninsurable under insurer’s criteria excluding from coverage drivers with excessive accidents, even though employer’s contracts with two cities required that it have liability insurance for drivers, where agreement does not permit non-disciplinary suspension of drivers who do not have major moving violation such as driving under influence, and insurer’s underwriting criteria conflict with agreement’s progressive disciplinary scheme.
Newspaper Drivers’ Union, Local 921 v. San Francisco Newspaper Agency (9th Cir. 1996). Court of Appeals upheld preliminary injunction forbidding employer conduct and maintaining status quo pending arbitration as injunction was necessary to preserve union’s arbitration remedy.