All notes for Subtopic 1109.02000 – Statute of Limitations
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2881E | West Contra Costa Unified School District 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations The six-month limitations period for an unfair practice charge begins once the charging party knows, or should know, of the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District (1996) PERB Decision No. 1177, p. 4.) For OGC to issue a complaint, the charging party must allege facts that would, if proven, establish timeliness. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359, pp. 3 & 30.) After OGC issues a complaint, the respondent bears the burden to plead untimeliness as an affirmative defense and to prove that the statute of limitations bars the charge. (Id. at p. 30.) District failed to establish statute of limitations defense, as union filed charge within six months of learning that the District was using responses to its non0binding survey to assign work opportunities. (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2189E | Alvord Educator's Association (Bussman) 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the six-month statutory limitations period begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further aid from the union was unlikely. Repeated union refusals to process a grievance over a recurring issue do not start the limitations period anew. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 13 | 06/29/11 |
| 2744E | San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.) 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations When a charging party amends an unfair practice charge and thereby adds new allegations, the statute of limitations for the newly-added allegations is generally the six months prior to the date the charging party filed the amended charge, unless the new allegations relate back to the allegations in the initial charge, or another recognized exception applies. (County of Santa Barbara (2012) PERB Decision No. 2279-M, p. 10.) Newly-added factual allegations in an amended charge relate back to those in the initial charge if they clarify or provide further detail regarding the facts initially alleged or assert facts that are a logical and sequential manifestation of the same course of conduct initially alleged. (Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2381, pp. 37-39.) The relation back doctrine also allows a charging party to add new legal theories, provided that such new theories rely on allegations included in the initial charge and/or allegations that satisfy the relation back standard. (Id. at pp. 37-38.) The Board found several of the new allegations in the amended charge related back to allegations in the initial charge because they were a logical and sequential manifestation of the same course of conduct alleged in the initial charge, but other new allegations were untimely because they did not relate back to the initial charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 35 | 08/31/20 |
| 2573M | County of Riverside 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations When an unalleged violation arises from the same facts as the allegations in the complaint, the unalleged violation is timely if the complaint allegations are timely. When the unalleged violation is a matter that was alleged in the unfair practice charge but omitted from the complaint, the unalleged violation is timely if the charge was timely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 17 | 06/25/18 |
| A409M | City of Redondo Beach 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations The Board held that an exclusive representative’s factfinding request was untimely pursuant to section 3505.4 of the MMBA and PERB Regulation 32802. Since the exclusive representative has the sole right to request factfinding, it has the responsibility to ensure that a request for factfinding is timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 152 | 04/09/14 |
| 2396M | City of Livermore 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations The statute of limitations for a charge of unlawful unilateral action runs from the date the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the employer’s clear intent to unilaterally implement a change in policy, provided that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent; by expressing a willingness to consider the union’s response to the change in policy in the paid meal break policy, making changes to the policy in response to the union’s input and retracting the implementation date, the employer wavered in its intent to implement the change in policy; the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the employer announced it was no longer amenable to negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 59 | 10/22/14 |
| A406M | City of Pasadena 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations Inconsistency in Board agent communications as to the date or procedure for appealing a decision may supply good cause to excuse an untimely filing. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 122 | 01/28/14 |
| 2359E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations Reversing in part Long Beach Community College District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2002, the Board held that while the charging party has the duty to provide the Office of the General Counsel with sufficient facts upon which to make a determination of timeliness, once a complaint issues, the statute of limitations becomes a true affirmative defense, which the respondent has the burden to plead and prove; if the respondent fails to plead the statute of limitations as a defense by raising it in the answer, the defense is waived; if the statute of limitations defense is properly raised, the respondent has the initial burden of going forward with evidence on the timeliness issue and the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the charge is untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 136 | 03/19/14 |
| A397H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations Joinder is not appropriate on appeal from an administrative decision denying a request for an extension of time to file a statement of exceptions for lack of party status; to grant joinder would be to revive a proceeding that has already concluded, a result as problematic as "impeding" an ongoing proceeding, which is gorunds for denial of joinder under PERB Regulation 32164. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 178 | 02/22/13 |
| 2243E | Santa Monica Community College District 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint in respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; the limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge; a charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed; where the charge alleged that the parties were required under the ground rules to sign off on tentative agreements as they were reached at the bargaining table, the union knew or should have known of the existence of a violation at the time each agreement was reached; because the charge alleged that the dates upon which the tentative agreements were reached were outside the statutory limitations period, the allegation that the college district violated the ground rules when it did not sign off on the tentative agreements when they were reached was time-barred; once the limitations period begins to run, it does not begin anew by making the same request and therefore the union’s subsequent request to sign off on the tentative agreements did not restart the limitations period; to establish a continuing violation, a charging party must show that there is some new violation, sufficiently independent of the original act, occurring within the limitations period; a continuing violation is not found where an employer’s conduct during the limitations period is simply maintaining the original position or action it took outside the limitations period; an alleged violation of ground rules requiring parties to sign off on tentative agreements when they are reached at the bargaining table is not in the nature of a continuing violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 132 | 02/29/12 |
| 1940M | Stationary Engineers Local 39 (Fisher) 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. Charging party knew or should have known more than two months outside the statutory limitations period that further assistance from the Association was unlikely. Accordingly, the charge was untimely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 36 | 01/18/08 |
| 1933H | California Faculty Association (Chapman and Druzgalski) 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations A charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. The statute of limitations runs from the discovery of the conduct constituting the unfair practice, not from the discovery of the legal significance of the alleged unlawful conduct. Because the unfair practice charge was filed nearly three years after the MOU was effective, the Board found the Charging Parties’ allegation was not timely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 15 | 12/21/07 |
| 1912H | Regents of the University of California 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. While the employees did not realize the deductions were being made until sometime much later, they received constructive notice of the dues deductions both in the form of the September 2005 notice from UCLA payroll, and on their monthly pay stubs for each month in which deductions were made. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 117 | 06/26/07 |
| 1203S | State of California (Prison Industry Authority) 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. University of California (1990) PERB Decision No. 826-H, California State University (San Diego) (1989) PERB Decision No. 718-H; id., p. 2. Where charging party had knowledge of the use of limited term employment for nearly two and a half years prior to statute of limitation date, charge was untimely filed; id. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28115 | 06/18/97 |
| 1177E | Gavilan Joint Community College District 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations Union that learned during limitations period of an employer misrepresentation which had occurred outside the period filed a timely charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28014 | 11/18/96 |
| 1947H | California Faculty Association (Onkvisit) 1109.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL; Statute of Limitations In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the six-month statutory limitations period begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. In May 2006, charging party was informed that the association would no longer pursue his grievance. The statute of limitations expired on November 2006, yet charging party did not file his charge until May 2007, nearly a year later. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 46 | 02/29/08 |