CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD – Unalleged Violations

Single Topic for Decision 1730E

View all topics for Decision 1730E

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

Charging party did not show good cause to raise new evidence on appeal under PERB Regulation 32635(b), i.e., that the July 1, 2003 grievance language did not evidence UESF’s knowledge of the unlawful effect of the transfer and it only learned of District’s EERA violation through the District’s December 30, 2003 response to the grievance. UESF was advised of the untimeliness of its charge through the District’s response to the charge and the Board agent’s warning letter. UESF did not file an amended charge and chose not to provide this information until its appeal. As the charge was filed on February 25, 2004, the Board deemed the charge to be untimely. UESF has similarly not demonstrated good cause to accept its new allegation raised for the first time on appeal that the charge and grievance cover different issues and so deferral to arbitration is not appropriate.