CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE – Continuing Violation

Single Topic for Decision 2243E

View all topics for Decision 2243E

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

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.