Decision 2051M – Service Employees International Union Local 721 (Hagens and Toole)
LA-CO-71-M
Decision Date: July 20, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Hagans and Toole alleged that SEIU failed to provide Toole with fair representation in a PERB proceeding and negotiated in bad faith with the City of Riverside.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge. The Board found the charge untimely because all of the alleged unfair practices occurred more than six months before the charge was filed.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 132
Decision Headnotes
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case
In a charge alleging violation of the duty of fair representation and bad faith negotiation under the MMBA, the limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. Charge failed to contain any allegations of unlawful activity within six months prior to filing the charge and was therefore untimely.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
In a charge alleging violation of the duty of fair representation and bad faith negotiation under the MMBA, charge failed to contain any allegations of unlawful activity within six months prior to filing the charge.
1109.01000 – In General
PERB Regulation 32635(b) prohibits a party from presenting new allegations and new supporting evidence in an appeal before PERB, unless good cause is shown. Allegations and evidence presented for the first time on appeal predated the Board agent’s dismissal letter and therefore were known to charging parties, yet they did not present them to the Board agent in an amended charge. Therefore, good cause did not exist for Board to consider new allegations and supporting evidence.
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)
PERB Regulation 32635(b) prohibits a party from presenting new allegations and new supporting evidence in an appeal before PERB, unless good cause is shown. Allegations and evidence presented for the first time on appeal predated the Board agent’s dismissal letter and therefore were known to charging parties, yet they did not present them to the Board agent in an amended charge. Therefore, good cause did not exist for Board to consider new allegations and supporting evidence.