CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE – Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine

Single Topic for Decision 2747M

View all topics for Decision 2747M

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

The MMBA generally precludes PERB from issuing a complaint based on an unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1089-1092.) However, the limitations period begins to run once the charging party knew or reasonably should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Raines, et al.) (2016) PERB Decision No. 2475, p. 57.) The Union’s amendment of its charge to add an interference claim was not barred by the statute of limitations where there was no dispute that the Union first learned of management’s internal e-mails (which formed the basis for the interference charge) by virtue of the City’s response to a subpoena, well within the six months prior to the Union’s request to amend the complaint.