CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2046E

View all topics for Decision 2046E

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

In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. Charging Party was specifically informed by the union on January 30, 2007, of the denial of his request for representation. Therefore, the January 22, 2008, unfair practice filing was barred by the six-month statute of limitations. In the absence of any evidence that the California Teachers Association (CTA) was an agent of Respondent, communications between CTA and Charging Party, regarding the possibility of representation by CTA, do not impact computation of the statute of limitations on duty of fair representation claims against Respondent. In cases alleging retaliation for protected activity, the statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. Charging Party’s claim of retaliation filed January 22, 2008, based on conduct of which he was clearly aware on or prior to April 20, 2007, was therefore beyond the six-month statute of limitations.