CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE – Statutory and Equitable Tolling

Single Topic for Decision 2758M

View all topics for Decision 2758M

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

To toll the statute of limitations based on lack of notice or discovery, a charging party must show that it did not have “clear and unequivocal notice” of the alleged misconduct. (Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) (2020) PERB Decision No. 2738-H, p. 12.) Here, nothing in the record shows that the Association knew or should have known prior to September 22, 2017 that the County’s Labor Relations Manager Craig Leedham made misrepresentations at the bargaining table. During negotiations in March and April 2017, Leedham repeatedly represented that the County would only report as income and not withhold taxes on employees’ accrued leave hours. Association representatives took Leedham’s statements at face value and communicated them to their membership, recommending that unit members ratify the tentative agreement precisely because of the reassurances the bargaining team had received that the County would only report constructive receipt income. Based on Leedham’s assurances, the Association membership ratified the MOA in May 2017. The Association’s reasonable reliance was reinforced when the County did not communicate anything further about the issue for over four months. It was only upon receipt of the Auditor-Controller’s September 22, 2017 letter directly contradicting Leedham’s March and April 2017 statements that the Association first learned of the County’s misrepresentations. Because the Association could not have discovered that Leedham’s statements were inaccurate until after September 22, 2017, the statute of limitations could not have begun to run prior to that date, and the misrepresentations therefore fall within the limitations period. (pp. 34-35.)