All notes for Subtopic 1101.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2806E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Visalia Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The Board rejected the District’s argument that the ALJ erred by relying on evidence of motive from outside the six-month statute of limitations. A statute of limitations applies to allegedly wrongful acts, not to evidence regarding motive. (State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (2019) PERB Decision No. 2637-S, p. 17; City of Oakland (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, pp. 34-35; see also County of Ventura (2021) PERB Decision No. 2758-M, p. 35 [applying analogous rule to allow evidence of bad faith conduct from prior to limitations period].) (p. 17.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 115 | 02/07/22 |
| 2847M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Kern County Hospital Authority 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General An employer’s announcement of a new policy as a fait accompli would not trigger a duty to demand bargaining and cannot support a waiver defense. Thus, waiver and timeliness normally apply in separate circumstances: announcing a fait accompli can trigger the statute of limitations for a unilateral change charge but cannot support a waiver by inaction defense, while proposing a new policy does not trigger the statute of limitations but can lead PERB to find waiver by inaction if the union does not respond to the proposal within a reasonable time. (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 20.) (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 12/20/22 | ||
| 2847M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Kern County Hospital Authority 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Absent a recognized exception, PERB cannot issue a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. (Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1077.) Before a complaint issues, a charging party bears the burden to allege facts that would, if proven, establish timeliness. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359, pp. 3, 30.) After a complaint issues, a respondent bears the burdens of pleading untimeliness as an affirmative defense in its answer, and then proving that the statute of limitations bars the charge. (Id. at p. 30.) (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 12/20/22 | ||
| 2738H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General A charging party’s belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. To toll the statute of limitations based on lack of notice or discovery, the party must show that it did not previously have clear and unequivocal notice of the alleged misconduct. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The statute of limitations period does not restart when the respondent’s action during the limitations period merely confirms or reiterates the same position it took outside the limitations period. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In unilateral change cases, the limitations period begins to run on the date charging party has actual or constructive notice of respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change, provided nothing subsequently evinces a wavering of that intent. (p. 8.) The union knew of the conduct underlying its unilateral change theory, viz., that the employer deviated from existing procedures, more than six months prior to filing the charge. (pp. 9-10.) The belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2738H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The six-month statute of limitations period begins to run when the charging party knows or should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 26 | 07/28/20 |
| 2721M | County of San Diego 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The Board clarified the continuing violation exception and the new wrongful act exception as those exceptions pertain to challenges to employer rules or policies. The continuing violation doctrine applies if a charging party alleges that a respondent’s rule or policy on its face interferes with protected rights or discriminates against protected activity, and the policy was in effect during the six months prior to the filing of the charge. In such cases, “it is not the ‘act’ of adopting the policy, but its ‘existence’ continuing to the time of the hearing that constitutes the offending conduct.” (City & County of San Francisco (2017) PERB Decision No. 2536-M, p. 8.) Thus, for the charge to be timely, the employer need not have applied the rule or policy to the charging party during the limitations period. (Long Beach Unified School District (1987) PERB Decision No. 608, p. 12.) The new wrongful act doctrine is a separate exception. It applies if the charging party alleges that within the limitations period the respondent committed a new wrongful act that goes beyond merely reiterating a prior policy. (City & County of San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision No. 2536-M, p. 15.) Normally, a charging party need not rely on the new wrongful act exception when it challenges a rule or policy based on an interference or discrimination theory, as the continuing violation doctrine usually applies in such cases. For claims based upon a unilateral change theory, in contrast, the new wrongful act doctrine tends to have more salience. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 187 | 05/22/20 |
| 2721M | County of San Diego 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In San Dieguito Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 194 (San Dieguito), the Board “articulated three distinct exceptions to the six-month rule: ‘the charge may still be considered to be timely filed if the alleged violation is a continuing one, if the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the six-month period, or if the limitation period was tolled.’” (City & County of San Francisco (2017) PERB Decision No. 2536, p. 15, fn. 14, quoting San Dieguito, supra, PERB Decision No. 194, p. 5.) In decisions such as San Dieguito, supra, PERB Decision No. 194, p. 5, and City & County of San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision No. 2536, p. 15, fn. 14, the Board held that the continuing violation doctrine and the new wrongful act doctrine are separate exceptions to the statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 187 | 05/22/20 |
| 2691M | City and County of San Francisco 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General A charging party timely challenges a local rule by filing a charge within six months of any independent instance in which the employer has applied the rule, or, alternatively, at any time under the continuing violation doctrine, if a union or employee would risk an adverse consequence by violating the rule. Union’s challenge was timely under both theories. First, union risked an adverse consequence under the Charter’s penalty provision, should union have missed the submission deadline. Second, union filed its charge early in the negotiations cycle, just as the City was beginning to apply its Charter provisions. The new negotiations cycle qualified as an independent application of the Charter, which triggered a new statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 124 | 01/17/20 |
| 2670M | County of Santa Clara 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General 101.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES; In General Though PERB may look to analogous federal precedent for guidance in construing California’s public sector labor relations statutes, it is not controlling authority. Thus, when federal law and the PERB-administered statutes serve dissimilar purposes, we are not constrained to follow federal precedent. (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 67 | 09/20/19 |
| 2626E | Orcutt Union Elementary School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The six-month statute of limitations period may be tolled either by statute or the doctrine of equitable tolling. (p. 4, fn. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 140 | 02/22/19 |
| A444M | City of San Luis Obispo 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Although PERB Regulation PERB Reg. 32164 governing applications for joinder as a part to an unfair practice charge contains no express time limit, an employer, employee organization or employee cannot use the joinder procedure to circumvent the six-month limitations period set forth in the statute and PERB Regulations. Where an employee organization could have filed its own timely unfair practice charge to challenge an employer action, but failed to do so within the limitations period, it cannot later join the proceedings initiated by another organization out of concern that a negotiated settlement may affect employees in its bargaining unit. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 108 | 12/13/16 |
| 2573M | County of Riverside 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General When an unalleged violation arises from the same facts as the allegations in the complaint, the unalleged violation is timely if the complaint allegations are timely. When the unalleged violation is a matter that was alleged in the unfair practice charge but omitted from the complaint, the unalleged violation is timely if the charge was timely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 17 | 06/25/18 |
| 2538E | San Diego Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party’s subsequent application for summer school, having previously been informed she was ineligible, did not revive the statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 41 | 09/07/17 |
| 2538E | San Diego Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Board rejected claim that statute of limitations did not begin to run due to respondent’s fraudulent concealment of certain facts, where charging party’s allegations showed no concealment. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 41 | 09/07/17 |
| 2475E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Raines, et al) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Under relation back doctrine, PERB may include additional charging parties after the limitations period has run if their allegations are identical to those included in a previously-filed charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 147 | 02/29/16 |
| 2398H | Regents of the University of California 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General After the issuance of a complaint by the Office of the General Counsel, assertion of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, and the respondent has the burden of proving the unfair practice charge was untimely. Thus, in satisfying its burden of proof on the timeliness issue where a grievance has been filed, the respondent must prove that the charge was filed outside the six-month limitations period and that the tolling exception does not apply. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 64 | 11/17/14 |
| 2447E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Beliefs, without factual foundation, comprise “mere speculation, conjecture, or legal conclusions” that are insufficient to prove a prima facie case. Charging party’s arguments were based on her sincerely-held beliefs, but were not supported by any objective facts in the record. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 43 | 08/10/15 |
| 2381E | Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The limitations period for a termination of employment or imposition of lesser discipline, commences on the date the termination or lesser discipline becomes effective, not on the earlier date on which an employer may provide an employee notice of its intention to terminate or impose the discipline. This policy recognizes that the question of whether a public employee may be terminated or disciplined is frequently subject to due process procedures under a collective bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding, or under other regulatory or statutory procedures, and, consequently, there may be a significant delay between an employer’s announcement of the intent to terminate or discipline, and the parties’ ensuing completion of applicable due process procedures. Where a charging party timely alleges that an employer’s notice of intent to terminate or discipline is unlawful under our statutes, and thereafter, following utilization by the parties of due process procedures, the employer does in fact either terminate or discipline the employee, an amended charge alleging that the termination or discipline itself either was unlawfully motived or interfered with the exercise of employee rights, will be deemed to relate back to the timely-filed charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 12 | 06/27/14 |
| 2396M | City of Livermore 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The statute of limitations for a charge of unlawful unilateral action runs from the date the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the employer’s clear intent to unilaterally implement a change in policy, provided that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent; by expressing a willingness to consider the union’s response to the change in policy in the paid meal break policy, making changes to the policy in response to the union’s input and retracting the implementation date, the employer wavered in its intent to implement the change in policy; the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the employer announced it was no longer amenable to negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 59 | 10/22/14 |
| 2283E | Jurupa Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Background events may be relied upon in characterizing conduct falling within the limitations period. (Sacramento City Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 214; Marin Community College District (1980) PERB Decision No. 145, Proposed Decision, p. 45; Machinists Local v. National Labor Relations Board (1960) 362 U.S. 411, 416 [events occurring prior to the limitations period may be utilized to shed light on the true character of matters occurring within the limitations period].) more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 58 | 08/21/12 |
| 2359E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Reversing in part Long Beach Community College District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2002, the Board held that while the charging party has the duty to provide the Office of the General Counsel with sufficient facts upon which to make a determination of timeliness, once a complaint issues, the statute of limitations becomes a true affirmative defense, which the respondent has the burden to plead and prove; if the respondent fails to plead the statute of limitations as a defense by raising it in the answer, the defense is waived; if the statute of limitations defense is properly raised, the respondent has the initial burden of going forward with evidence on the timeliness issue and the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the charge is untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 136 | 03/19/14 |
| 2278E | San Bernardino City Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge alleging violation of EERA based upon failure to reclassify and pay teacher according to certificated salary schedule filed more than six years after employee received documentation regarding years of service is several years untimely and subject to dismissal. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 36 | 07/11/12 |
| 2279M | County of Santa Barbara 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Allegations in amended charge are untimely. Relation back doctrine does not apply because new allegations cannot be viewed as merely clarifying the original allegations in this initial charge or adding a new legal theory based on facts originally alleged in the initial charge, but were added to charge. Equitable tolling does not apply to render allegations of amended charge timely, where charging party did not provide PERB with a copy of grievance procedures or other documentation demonstrating what occurred during grievance procedure. Allegations in original charge regarding changed job duties and increased security were incorporated into amended charge and should have been included in complaint relating to poor performance evaluation and denial of overtime opportunity. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 49 | 08/09/12 |
| 2281M | City of Berkeley 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In cases involving allegations that an employee was terminated from employment for having engaged in protected activities, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of actual termination, rather than the date of notification of the intent to terminate Retaliation charge filed more than six months after date of termination is untimely. Because charging party failed to provide PERB with copy of grievance procedure or grievances, nor to allege in what manner allegations of retaliation for having engaged in protected activity involve the “same dispute” as issue before arbitrator, i.e., whether City was entitled to terminate her employment upon failure to return from approved leave of absence, six-month limitations period was not subject to equitable tolling. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 52 | 08/17/12 |
| 2198M | Alameda County Management Employees Association (Harper) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The six-month limitations period in cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely; where charging party was not given a timeframe by which she could expect a response from the union and instead was informed by union that historically the union was slow in processing inclusion requests, charging party had no reason to believe her inclusion request was not being processed until receipt of a letter from her employer in which she was so informed, and therefore her charge was timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 38 | 08/29/11 |
| 2202M | Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (Crandell) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The six-month limitations period in cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely; charging party knew or should have known that further assistance was unlikely when union chose not to assist in the filing of the grievance. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 45 | 09/15/11 |
| 2204M | Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (Horan) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the six-month limitations period begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely; where the only conduct complained of in the charge was union’s failure to represent charging party at a scheduled arbitration, and charge was filed within six months of arbitration, charge was timely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 50 | 09/23/11 |
| 2273E | Standard School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Under the Gavilan “knew or should have known” standard, the statute of limitations for a charge alleging a violation of the public notice provisions of EERA begins to run either upon publication of a public notice or a meeting at which bargaining proposals will be sunshined or at the public meeting itself. Thus, if the charge alleges that the notice itself was defective, the statute of limitations begins to run upon publication of the notice. If the charge alleges that the notice itself was proper but the proposals sunshined at the meeting failed to comply with the provisions of EERA section 3547, the limitations period begins to run on the date of the meeting where the proposals were presented to the public. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 17 | 06/22/12 |
| 2242M | County of Sonoma 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge that employer unilaterally changed its policy on retiree health insurance contributions from a prior policy of paying the same premium costs on behalf of retirees as it paid for current employees was not timely filed, where union knew or should have known of employer’s 20-year past practice of paying the same contributions for retirees as it did for administrative management. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 131 | 02/29/12 |
| 2234S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Dills Act section 3514.5(a)(1) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. In this case, the employer allegedly refused to bargain over effects of a unilateral change, then allegedly refused to bargain twice more thereafter. The second and third requests to bargain reiterated the first request. The statute of limitations began to run when the charging party learned of the employer’s first refusal to bargain and thus, the employer’s initial refusal to bargain fell outside of the statutory period. In the absence of changed circumstances, subsequent failures to bargain about a prior change do not constitute new violations so as to bring the dispute within the statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 114 | 01/31/12 |
| 2236M | Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 29, AFL-CIO and Central Labor Councils (Fowles) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Amended unfair practice charges “relate back” to the original charge when they clarify existing allegations or add a new legal theory based on the same set of facts in the original charge. Amended charge that clarified existing factual allegations by providing specific dates and describing the factual circumstances under which union allegedly made misrepresentations to employee concerning her obligation to join the union and pay union dues was sufficiently related to the original allegations of the charge and therefore timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 120 | 02/07/12 |
| 2208E | California School Employees Association and its Chapter 724 (Davis) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The mere fact that union attempted to resolve employee’s concerns through an informal process rather than through the formal grievance process does not establish a violation of the duty of fair representation. Accordingly, employee’s discovery that union pursued informal resolution does not preserve timeliness of claim. Instead, statute of limitations began to run when charging party knew or should have known that assistance from the union was not forthcoming. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 61 | 10/06/11 |
| 2133E | United Faculty of Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (Tarvin) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to “any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.” In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the six month statutory limitations period begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 140 | 09/21/10 |
| 2194E | American Federation of Teachers Part-Time Faculty United, Local 6286 (Peavy) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Six-month statute of limitations did not begin to run when charging party filed grievance on his own, but instead began to run when charging party notified employer that he no longer sought union’s assistance in processing grievance and would proceed to mediation on his own. On that date, charging party knew or should have known that assistance from the union was unlikely. Furthermore, charging party knew or should have known that further assistance was unlikely when union informed him it would not take his case to arbitration. Charge filed within six months of either date was timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 28 | 08/12/11 |
| 2192M | International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees, Local 21, AFL-CIO (Hosny) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the six-month statutory limitations period begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. An employee’s continued attempts to obtain assistance from the union does not extend the statute of limitations. Where employee received no communication from union for over a year, charge was not timely filed. In addition, charge filed over one and one-half years after union informed employee that it would not take his appeal to arbitration was not timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 18 | 07/27/11 |
| 2173M | County of Sonoma 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge that employer unilaterally changed its policy on retiree health insurance contributions by tying them to contributions made on behalf of active unrepresented administrative management employees rather than to contributions made on behalf of bargaining unit employees was not timely filed, where union knew or should have known of employer’s 20-year past practice of paying the same contributions for retirees as it did for administrative management. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 61 | 03/01/11 |
| 2175H | California State University Employees Union, Service Employees International Union Local 2579 (Kyrias) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge alleged that respondent breached its duty of fair representation, retaliated against charging party, and interfered with charging party’s rights by failing to file a timely request to arbitrate charging party’s grievance. The charging party learned more than six months before she filed the charge that the respondent had failed to file the arbitration request. The charge did not allege that respondent’s continued attempts to move charging party’s grievance to arbitration within the limitations period constituted an unfair practice. Therefore, the charge was untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 68 | 03/25/11 |
| 2172M | Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (Scholink) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge untimely when filed more than six months after charging party first learned of letter of understanding between his union and employer that would require him to obtain and maintain pediatric registry as a condition of continued employment as a cardiac sonographer. The Board rejected charging party’s claim on appeal that the discovery date alleged in the original charge was erroneous; charging party could have corrected the alleged mistake in his amended charge but did not do so. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 60 | 03/01/11 |
| 2165M | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 36 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General All allegations of wrongdoing by the union occurred outside the six-month statute of limitations and are therefore untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 51 | 02/25/11 |
| 2166M | Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party alleges that he was medically released to return to work in or around May 2006, but his employer did not allow him to do so. Accordingly, in or around May 2006, charging party knew or should have known that his employer was not allowing him to return to work. Since charging party did not file his charge until nearly three years later, the retaliation allegation is untimely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 49 | 02/25/11 |
| 2157E | Rio Teachers Association (Lucas) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General A violation of EERA section 3546.5 occurs when a union fails to make available to its members the financial report for the immediately preceding fiscal year. To be timely, a charge alleging a violation of section 3546.5 must be filed within six months of when the charging party knew or should have known that the employee organization failed or refused to provide the requested financial report for the immediately preceding fiscal year. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 27 | 01/21/11 |
| 2159E | Charter Oak Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The statute of limitations begins to run when a charging party discovers the conduct that constitutes the alleged unfair practice, not when a charging party discovers the legal significance of that conduct. Therefore, allegation that charging party received information confirming her suspicions about the employer’s motivation did not render charge timely filed. Similarly, charging party’s lack of knowledge about PERB and the laws it enforces does not toll the six-months limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 32 | 01/27/11 |
| 2150E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Thomas) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Where charging party was aware that the union declined to support or assist her with her grievance, the limitations period began to run. Unfair practice charge filed approximately 15 months later was untimely. PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with 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. Charging party’s claim that the limitations period should be extended because she spoke with a PERB agent within the six-month statute of limitations, regarding her work complaints, and was not advised that she might have a claim against the union is without merit. Charging party bears the burden to identify the respondent and allege facts to state a prima facie violation of the Act. Board regulations allow for agents to provide technical assistance, not legal representation or interpretations of law, to complainants. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 13 | 12/13/10 |
| 2151H | Trustees of the California State University 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Where charging party was aware that the employer held back information at least 18 months prior to filing amended charge, the allegation of failure to provide requested information was untimely. PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with 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 for new allegations in an amended charge is based on the filing date of the amended charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 14 | 12/14/10 |
| 2144M | West Side Healthcare District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party has the burden to allege a “clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice charge.” Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. Where charging party claimed that the employer created a point system for absences, late calls or tardiness, reduced the level of benefits that employees would receive, and made changes to the merit pay policy, but failed to include facts setting forth the original policies or procedures and/or how the new procedures were different from the originals, the charge was insufficient to establish a prima facie case for illegal unilateral change. Charging party has the burden to allege a “clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice charge.” Where charge alleged, without more, that the employer withdrew from tentative agreements, appeared at a meeting without looking at a previous proposal, and refused to discuss any wage proposal, charge was insufficient to establish a claim for surface bargaining. The allegations lack the clear and concise factual context necessary to establish an indicia of surface bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 6 | 11/30/10 |
| 2132M | County of Riverside 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In a unilateral change case, the six-month statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party knows, or should have known, of the respondent’s intent to implement a change in policy. Union’s charge alleging unilateral change in employer’s overtime compensation policy was untimely because nine months before the union filed the charge, it executed a side letter that exempted certain classifications from the pending overtime changes. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 139 | 09/21/10 |
| 2127E | Mount Diablo Education Association (Scott) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In cases alleging a union’s breach of the duty of fair representation under a “pattern of conduct” theory, a violation may be established based on inaction that occurred more than six months before the charge was filed, provided the inaction was part of the same course of conduct as inaction within the statutory limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 125 | 08/17/10 |
| 2101H | Regents of the University of California (Davis) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General HEERA section 3563.2(a) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. In unilateral change cases, the limitation period begins to run on the date the charging party obtains actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change in policy, provided that nothing subsequently evinces a wavering of that intent. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 55 | 03/01/10 |
| 2084H | Regents of the University of California (Los Angles) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General HEERA section 3563.2(a) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. A charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. In cases alleging unlawful unilateral changes, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change in policy, providing that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent. Thus, a unilateral change occurs when an official action has been taken, not a subsequent date when the action becomes effective. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 20 | 12/14/09 |
| 2041M | City and County of San Francisco 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Unfair practice charges filed under the MMBA are subject to a six-month statute of limitations. In cases involving violations of local rules, the statute of limitations generally begins to run when the rule is violated. Thus, the mere threat of non-compliance with a local rule is insufficient, standing alone, to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 120 | 06/29/09 |
| 2086E | Garden Grove Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General While actions outside the statutory limitations period may not be considered as separate violations in the absence of an independent violation within the limitations period they may nonetheless be considered as background evidence of the employer's motive. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 25 | 12/28/09 |
| 2042M | County of San Diego (Health and Human Services) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. In retaliation cases, the statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party discovers the conduct that constitutes the unfair practice, not when the charging party discovers the legal significance of that conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 121 | 06/29/09 |
| 2059E | Los Angeles Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The timeliness of a charge is an element of the charging party’s prima facie case and, thus, the burden of proof to show that the charge was timely filed is on the charging party. The statute of limitations under EERA may be tolled during the period of time the parties are utilizing a non-binding dispute resolution procedure if: (l) the procedure is contained in a written agreement negotiated by the parties; (2) the procedure is being used to resolve the same dispute that is the subject of the unfair practice charge; (3) the charging party reasonably and in good faith pursues the procedure; and (4) tolling does not frustrate the purpose of the statutory limitation period by causing surprise or prejudice to the respondent. This tolling mechanism, sometimes referred to as equitable tolling, does not apply when the parties’ grievance procedure ends in binding arbitration and the statutory tolling provisions set forth in EERA section 3541.5(a)(2) apply. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 149 | 09/08/09 |
| 2001M | Omnitrans 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. In unilateral change cases, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date a charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change in policy, provided that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent. The charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 34 | 01/30/09 |
| 2063E | Los Banos Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In cases involving allegations that an employee was terminated from employment in retaliation for having engaged in protected activities, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of actual termination, rather than the date of notification of the intent to terminate. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 161 | 09/25/09 |
| 2076M | Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (Lam) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge alleging breach of duty of fair representation was timely when filed exactly six months to the day after charging party discovered employee organization’s participation in closure of his grievances. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 185 | 11/04/09 |
| 1968M | Orange County Fire Authority 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In a unilateral change case, the limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. The statute of limitations runs from the discovery of the conduct constituting the unfair practice, not from the discovery of the legal significance of the alleged unlawful conduct. Thus, a charging party’s belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 112 | 06/30/08 |
| 2052M | Nevada Irrigation District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The six-month statute of limitations commences to run when the charging parties knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice. The charging party must file a charge when it has actual or constructive notice of a clear intent to implement the action which constitutes the basis for the unfair practice, provided that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent. The Union failed to demonstrate that the District’s conduct evidenced a wavering of intent. The e-mail revealed no discussions were on-going between the Union and the District concerning the grievability of the issue; rather, the discussions referenced concerned the employee’s employment status. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 134 | 07/23/09 |
| 2046E | Alvord Educator's Association (Bussman) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 128 | 06/30/09 |
| 2056M | Teamsters Locals 78 and 853 (Hinek) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge filed at least eight months after union informed employee that it would not process his grievance was untimely and properly dismissed. Employee’s continued attempts to obtain assistance by contacting the Teamsters International and union’s attorney did not extend the limitations period. The alleged failure of a representative of the International to set up a conference call as promised did not start the limitations period anew, as charging party was already on clear notice that the union had made a firm decision not to process his grievance. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 154 | 08/26/09 |
| 2036M | City of Alhambra 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Equitable tolling does not apply to participation in non-contractual disciplinary appeals, such as Skelly hearings, which are not bilaterally agreed upon dispute resolution procedures. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 103 | 06/09/09 |
| 2037M | City of Alhambra 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Unilateral change charge was untimely filed, where the Union knew or should have known of the employer’s policy regarding the location of personnel files long before the six-month statutory limitations period under the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 101 | 06/09/09 |
| 2032H | Trustees of the California State University (San Jose) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General HEERA allows the Board to equitably toll the statute of limitations for filing a charge with PERB in appropriate circumstances. Equitable tolling can easily be reconciled with HEERA’s fundamental purpose of promoting harmonious labor relations. The Board adopts the same test set forth in Long Beach Community College District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2002 to determine whether the statute of limitations under HEERA will be tolled when the negotiated dispute resolution procedure ends in binding arbitration: (1) the procedure is contained in a written agreement negotiated by the parties; (2) the procedure is being used to resolve the same dispute that is the subject of the unfair practice charge; (3) the charging party reasonably and in good faith pursues the procedure; and (4) tolling does not frustrate the purpose of the statutory limitation period by causing surprise or prejudice to the respondent. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 94 | 05/29/09 |
| 2038H | Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Visalia Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2806 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Visalia Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2806. * * *The statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party discovers the conduct that constitutes the unfair practice, not when the charging party discovers the legal significance of that conduct. Employee’s discovery that her failure to receive pay raises outside the limitations period may have been discriminatory did not re-start the statute of limitations period; limitations period began to run when employee received her paycheck that did not include a raise. Under the continuing violation doctrine, a violation within the statute of limitations period may revive an earlier violation of the same type that occurred outside the limitations period. Continuing violation doctrine did not apply to alleged retaliatory actions that occurred more than six months before the charge was filed because no actions of the same type were taken by the employer within the limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 106 | 06/11/09 |
| 2025M | Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West (Rivera) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the six-month statutory limitations period begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. Repeated union refusals to assist a unit member with the same issue do not start the limitations period anew. Charge untimely when filed more than eight months after union representative told charging party she could do nothing more regarding his termination. Union’s subsequent denials of assistance on that issue did not start limitations period anew. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 95 | 05/15/09 |
| 2015E | Compton Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge not timely because charging parties knew or should have known the district would no longer meet with them and had implemented a change to their seniority status at least two years before they filed the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 66 | 04/01/09 |
| 2016E | Compton Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The issue of improperly adjusting charging party's seniority ranking has been known to charging party since at least 2003. The corrected copy of the exam results received in August 2006, containing the adjusted seniority ranking, reflected the District's prior action to change the seniority ranking and therefore any allegation related to this conduct is untimely. The six-month statutory limitations period commences on the date that conduct constituting an unfair practice is discovered, rather than the date of the discovery of the legal significance of the conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 67 | 04/01/09 |
| 2017S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The allegation of bad faith bargaining was based entirely on conduct outside the six-month statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 68 | 04/01/09 |
| 2011E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32635(b) “unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not present on appeal new allegations or new supporting evidence.” Charging Party failed to demonstrate good cause to allow presentation of new allegations or evidence on appeal and nothing in the appeal indicates that such good cause exists. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 55 | 03/13/09 |
| 2002E | Long Beach Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359, where the Board held that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and is not jurisdictional (equitable tolling is an allowable doctrine). * * *Six month statute of limitations in EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) is not jurisdictional. In PERB unfair practice proceedings, the statute of limitations is an element of the charging party’s prima facie case that the charging party bears the burden of proving at hearing. The portions of Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564 and Walnut Valley Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 289 stating that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be raised and proved by the respondent are overruled. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 36 | 01/30/09 |
| 1960M | South Placer Fire Protection District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In unilateral change case, statute of limitations begins to run when charging party has actual or constructive knowledge of respondent’s clear intent to implement the change. District’s position during negotiations that Fire Marshall classification was no longer in the bargaining unit was insufficient to give the Union notice of the District’s clear intent to reclassify the position. Union did not have notice of clear intent until the District’s Board of Directors approved the reclassification. Charge was timely filed within six months after the District Board’s action. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 96 | 06/10/08 |
| 1998M | Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 (Estival) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The union’s failure to assist charging party in the pursuit of his claims to the Department of Labor are untimely because they occurred more than a year before the charge was filed and therefore were properly dismissed. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 29 | 01/14/09 |
| 1984S | Service Employees International Union Local 1000 (George) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party has the burden of alleging facts to demonstrate charge is timely filed. Many of the allegations in the charge were filed outside the six month statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 2 | 10/31/08 |
| 1974H | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Owens) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the six-month statutory limitations period begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. Here, the ALJ credited AFSCME’s representatives’ testimony over charging party’s in regards to when charging party received notice that AFSCME did not intend to pursue her grievance further. AFSCME informed charging party that it would not pursue her grievance at the latest on January 16. The statute began to run in January 2006 and expired in July 2006. Charging party did not file the present charge until August 25, 2006. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 135 | 08/29/08 |
| 1978S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Knowledge of pending legislation is not sufficient to demonstrate actual or constructive notice of the clear intent to implement a change in policy. Rather, filing the charge within six months of the enactment of new legislation was timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 148 | 09/26/08 |
| 1976E | Berkeley Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Even if charging party knew or should have known of the parties’ mutual mistake of fact approximately one year before charge was filed, six-month statute of limitations did not begin to run at that time because PERB does not recognize mutual mistake as an unfair practice. Limitation period began to run when respondent refused to re-open negotiations over collective bargaining agreement provision alleged to be the result of the mutual mistake. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 138 | 09/09/08 |
| 1961S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Statute of limitations begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice. Charge was timely filed because it alleged no facts indicating that charging party knew, or should have known, before the date the State rejected his assignment bids that they would be rejected and charge filed within six months of rejection. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 101 | 06/17/08 |
| 1965E | Oakland Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General With allegations of termination of employment, it is the effective date of termination that triggers the running of the statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 107 | 06/26/08 |
| 1944M | South Placer Fire Protection District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In a unilateral change case, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s intent to implement a change in policy. Thus, a charging party that rests on its rights until actual implementation of the change bears the risk of running afoul of the statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 44 | 02/27/08 |
| 1940M | Stationary Engineers Local 39 (Fisher) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. In cases alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation, the six-month statutory limitations period begins to run on the date when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. Charging party knew or should have known more than two months outside the statutory limitations period that further assistance from the Association was unlikely. Accordingly, the charge was untimely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 36 | 01/18/08 |
| 1933H | California Faculty Association (Chapman and Druzgalski) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General A charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. An unfair practice allegation may still be considered to be timely filed if the alleged violation is a continuing one. To establish a continuing violation, a charging party must demonstrate that the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the statutory limitations period. A continuing violation will not be found where the employer’s conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice only by its relation to the original offense. The statute of limitations runs from the discovery of the conduct constituting the unfair practice, not from the discovery of the legal significance of the alleged unlawful conduct. The fact that Charging Parties received a bargaining update from the Association within the statutory limitations period does not make this allegation timely filed. Because the unfair practice charge was filed nearly three years after the MOU was effective, the Board found the Charging Parties’ allegation was not timely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 15 | 12/21/07 |
| 1936E | Yuba Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party’s notice of non-renewal of his administration contract pursuant to Education Code section 72411 and “right to become a first-year probationary faculty member once his or her administrative assignment” terminated was not a termination. The District never severed the employer-employee relationship. As such, Empire Union School District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1650 is applicable and not Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1585. The charge was untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 28 | 12/31/07 |
| 1931I | Santa Cruz County Superior Court 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The statute of limitations for unfair practice charges filed under the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act is six months. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 11 | 11/29/07 |
| 1923S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The statute of limitations is six months under the Dills Act. The statute of limitations, however, pursuant to Government Code section 3514.5(a), is tolled during the time it takes the charging party to exhaust the grievance machinery. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 149 | 09/27/07 |
| 1918S | Union of American Physicians and Dentists (Menaster) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General As the employee filed the charge on July 19, 2006, the statute of limitations dates back to include conduct occurring on or after January 19, 2006. As such, allegations of conduct that occurred before January 19, 2006, are untimely and must be dismissed. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 135 | 08/09/07 |
| 1919M | Inlandboatmans Union of the Pacific (Treas) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging Party contends the Union violated its duty of fair representation by failing to secure his sick leave and lunch time pay, but fails to provide any facts regarding his contact with the union. The charge is devoid of any facts regarding when the Charging Party contacted the Union about this problem, whom he spoke with and what their response was. Without such information, it is impossible for PERB to determine if a violation has occurred. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 138 | 08/10/07 |
| 1896M | Turlock Irrigation District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The statute of limitations for filing an unfair practice charge began to run when the local agency’s board of directors denied the union’s appeal of the denial of its petition for recognition. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 80 | 03/28/07 |
| 1867H | State Employees Trades Council-United (Chemello) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party alleged violation of the union’s duty of fair representation beyond the statute of limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 25 | 12/14/06 |
| 1866H | Trustees of the California State University (Humboldt) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party was aware of a reorganization four years prior to his layoff and was aware of a threat of layoff more than a year before his layoff; therefore his allegations that the reorganization led to his layoff and that he was threatened were both untimely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 26 | 12/14/06 |
| 1849M | County of Santa Cruz 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging Party failed to state a prima facie case of unilateral change, discrimination, contracting out or a violation of the duty to provide information. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 151 | 08/16/06 |
| 1835S | State of California (Department Of Transportation) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. Charging party filed charge nearly two years after his employment was terminated. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 108 | 04/10/06 |
| 1837M | County of Siskiyou 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The statute of limitations for unfair practice charges filed under the MMBA is six months. (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 234].) more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 116 | 05/09/06 |
| 1782C | Lake County Superior Court 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The statute of limitations for unfair practice charged filed under the Trial Court Act is six months. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 7 | 11/01/05 |
| 1832H | Regents of the University of California (San Diego) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Where employer raises issue of statute of limitations, charging party has burden of demonstrating that charge is timely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 103 | 03/24/06 |
| 1771H | Regents of the University of California 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The allegations surrounding the Skelly hearing were untimely filed since the hearing occurred on July 18, 2002, the date Sarka alleged that he learned about certain supporting documents was May 6, 2003, and the charge was filed on April 2, 2004, well in excess of the six month limitations period. Since these allegations were untimely, the Board declined to address the merits of these allegations. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 144 | 06/24/05 |
| A321M | City of Anaheim 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General This decision was overturned by the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court held that a six-month statute of limitations applies to cases filed under the Meyers –Milias –Brown Act.(see Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District v. California Public Employment Relations Board (2005) 35 Cal 4th. 1072. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 53 | 04/09/03 |
| 1764E | United Educators of San Francisco (Banos) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Unfair practice charge is timely when filed within 6 months of reasonable belief that there will be no further assistance from union. Here, employee called union one day before beginning of six month period and charge is timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 124 | 04/21/05 |
| 1736S | California State Employees Association (Chen) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In a duty of fair representation case, the statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. The charge was filed August 10, 2004. Chen should have known well before February 10, 6 months before the charge was filed, that CSEA was not pursuing her grievance. CSEA drafted the grievance on December 9. CSEA failed to respond to her December 12 letter inquiry and telephone messages the week of January 12. Therefore, the charge was untimely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 56 | 01/19/05 |
| 1664M | City and County of San Francisco 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Local 790 did not allege a date for which the City issued a directive that a job steward must be available to employees during an investigation. This allegation did not specify the facts alleged to constitute an unfair practice under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5). Although it did not provide this information in an amended charge, Local 790 alleged a time element on appeal but did not allege facts to show good cause to add the information at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, under PERB Regulation 32635(b), the allegation is dismissed. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 231 | 07/27/04 |
| 1726E | United Educators of San Francisco (Coverson) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General After respondent asserts statute of limitations defense and charging party provides no information indicating why charge filed six years after conduct alleging breach of duty of fair representation occurred should be considered timely, burden is not met. Charge is not timely when filed six years after alleged conduct (EERA sec. 3541.5 (A)(1)). more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 34 | 12/15/04 |
| 1616E | San Juan Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The Board must assume that the essential facts alleged in the charge are true. Disputed facts must be resolved under the Board’s hearing process. Therefore, the allegation concerning the teachers’ shared position, that the Association learned of the elimination of the shared contract position within the limitations period, is timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 128 | 04/05/04 |
| 1692E | Salinas Union High School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The facts show that Montoya and the Federation knew of the District’s final decision on her grievance no later than July 2002 but the charge was not filed until March 26, 2003. Therefore, the filing of the charge exceeded the six-month limitation period under EERA and the charge was dismissed on that basis. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 256 | 09/17/04 |
| 1697H | Trustees of the California State University 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Given the six-month limitations period for filing a charge under HEERA, since the charge, as amended, was filed on October 22, 2002, all allegations occurring before February 22, 2002 are untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 264 | 09/30/04 |
| 1606E | California School Employees Association-Chapter 244 (Guitierrez) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Once CSEA raised timeliness as an affirmative defense, Gutierrez had the burden of showing the charge to be timely. Gutierrez’ claims that CSEA did not represent her in claims about her work schedule were untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 93 | 02/26/04 |
| 1650E | Empire Union School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party’s discovery of the legal significance of underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. (UCLA Labor Relations Division (1989) PERB Decision No. 735-H; California State Employees' Association (Darzins) (1985) PERB Decision No. 546-S.) To the extent Peralta Community College District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1281 suggest otherwise, it is overruled. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 188 | 06/29/04 |
| 1643M | City and County of San Francisco 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Board dismissed charge as untimely under MMBA where conduct alleged as discriminatory occurred more than three years prior to filing of charges. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 179 | 06/15/04 |
| 1644M | Service Employees International Union Local 790 (Montgomery) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Board dismissed charge as untimely where conduct alleged as discriminatory occurred more than three years prior to filing of charges. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 180 | 06/15/04 |
| 1630M | County of Placer 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Union appealed to the County Civil Service Commission the denial of the processing of a grievance more than 60 days after the alleged violation. An unfair practice charge was filed by the Union. Board dismissed charge found no violation of MMBA because the original complaint filed with the county was untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 152 | 05/18/04 |
| 1631E | Los Rios Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charges filed under EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) untimely when filed more than six months from date party knew or should have known of conduct giving rise to claim of a retaliatory reaction to protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 153 | 05/18/04 |
| 1511E | Santa Rosa Junior College 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Board dismissed charge as untimely where charging party’s allegations involved events that occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 47 | 05/05/03 |
| 1486E | Lodi Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Most of the conduct alleged by the charging party occurred outside the six-month limitations period for filing of charges. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33096 | 06/28/02 |
| 1487E | California School Employees Association and its Chapter 77 (Vincelet) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party’s allegation that union gave her faulty information regarding district’s ability to call witnesses at administrative hearing was untimely because it occurred outside six-month limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33097 | 06/28/02 |
| 1612E | Santa Rosa Junior College 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Statute of limitations under EERA is six months. Board dismissed charge alleging that charging party was forced to resign her position where charged revealed that alleged conduct occurred almost three years prior to filing of charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 121 | 04/02/04 |
| 1613E | Sonoma Valley Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Statute of limitations under EERA is six months. Board dismissed charge alleging that charging party was demoted where charged revealed that alleged conduct occurred almost three years prior to filing of charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 122 | 04/02/04 |
| 1585H | Regents of the University of California 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Board adopts rule set forth in Romano v. Rockwell (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, that where discrimination is alleged under HEERA, statute of limitations is triggered by effective date of termination, not the notice of termination; Regents of the University of California (1999) PERB Decision No. 1327-H is overruled. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 62 | 01/15/04 |
| 1564E | Long Beach Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Board held that statute of limitation under EERA is not jurisdictional; overruling California State University, San Diego (1989) PERB Decision No. 718-H. Instead the statute of limitation must be raised as an affirmative defense or it is waived. Board reinstated doctrine of equitable tolling. Board held that when a grievance has been filed utilizing a bilaterally agreed upon dispute resolution procedure in an effort to resolve the same dispute which is the subject of the charge, the statute of limitations is tolled during the period of time the grievance is being pursued if: (1) the charging party reasonably and in good faith pursues the grievance; and (2) tolling did not frustrate the purpose of the statutory limitation period by causing surprise or prejudice to the respondent. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 27 | 12/08/03 |
| 1572E | Fremont Unified District Teachers Association (Kaiser) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation, the statute of limitations is triggered “on the date when the employee, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely.” In this matter, charging party alleges that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to secure her an expedited grievance meeting. The Board finds that charging party knew, or should have known, that further assistance was unlikely on the date that charging party wrote the District requesting such a meeting. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 39 | 12/24/03 |
| 1553S | California State Employees Association, Service Employees International Union Local 1000, AFL-CIO, Central Labor Councils (Sutton) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Statute of limitations for a charge alleging breach of the duty of fair representation is six months and is triggered on the date the employee, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. Charging party’s repeated requests for representation, in the face of steadfast refusals from the union, do not begin the limitations period anew. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 8 | 10/21/03 |
| 1531M | City of Folsom 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Because the employee resigned (per the agreement) knowing that the City had not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement, the employee was aware on the date of resignation of the alleged infraction as of that date and the limitations period started to run. Subsequent failures by the City to honor the employee’s multiple requests to cure its violation do not restart the limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 89 | 06/20/03 |
| 1519H | Regents of the University of California (Los Alamos National Laboratory) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General A charging party must establish that the challenged conduct did not fall outside the six-month statute of limitations in order for the Board to proceed to evaluate the merits of the charge. Enter did not provide the date of the alleged tampering of the report or the date the report was issued; therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to evaluate the merits of the charges. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 67 | 05/07/03 |
| 1536M | International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (Tupou) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Board dismissed charge as untimely where alleged unfair practice occurred almost six years prior to the filing of the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 96 | 06/23/03 |
| 1448E | California School Employees Association, Chapter 245 (Waymire) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge dismissed where alleged unfair practices occurred outside the six month statutory limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32088 | 06/25/01 |
| 1449E | Monterey Peninsula Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge dismissed where alleged unfair practices occurred outside the six month statutory limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32089 | 06/25/01 |
| 1444E | California School Employees Association (Garcia) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General New specific charge allegations offered for the first time on appeal dismissed as untimely as falling outside of the six-month statute of limitations contained in EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32084 | 06/07/01 |
| 1406S | State of California (Department of Mental Health) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party has not met her burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed (Tehachapi Unified School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1024), where charge was filed on April 28, 2000 but facts indicate that she was notified of her termination on July 16, 1999. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31160 | 09/26/00 |
| 1407S | California State Employees Association (Coleman) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party has not met her burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed (Tehachapi Unified School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1024), where charge was filed on April 28, 2000 but facts indicate that her last contact with union was October 12, 1999. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31161 | 09/26/00 |
| 1419E | Service Employees International Union, Local 790 (Bryant) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging Party failed to meet burden of establishing that charge was timely filed when charge did not provide any dates when challenged events occurred. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32038 | 02/26/01 |
| 1424E | Oxnard Educators Association (Gibbons) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging Party failed to prove that even with the exercise of reasonable diligence, he could not have reasonably discovered the alleged unfair practice until six months before the charge was filed. Charging Party took no action to further pursue his challenge against District for reassigning and transferring him and no action to further investigate or pursue his claim against OEA for its alleged failure to represent him for over 16 months. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32043 | 03/01/01 |
| 1418E | Peralta Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging Party failed to meet burden of establishing that charge was timely filed when charge did not provide any dates when challenged events occurred. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32037 | 02/26/01 |
| 1397S | State of California (Department of General Services) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Government Code section 3514.5(a)(1) prohibits the Board from issuing a complaint in respect of any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. Here the charge failed to provide any facts which indicated when the alleged unfair practices occurred. Since it could not be determined whether the unfair practices occurred within the statutory limitations period, the charge failed to state a prima facie case and was dismissed. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31126 | 07/20/00 |
| 1394S | State of California (Department of General Services) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge allegation that employer bypassed union at an unspecified time was untimely, since charge failed to provide any facts which indicated when the challenged events occurred. Thus, it was not possible to determine whether they occurred within six months of date charge filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31123 | 07/07/00 |
| 1395S | State of California (Department of General Services) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge was untimely, since it failed to provide any facts which indicated when the challenged events occurred. Thus, it was not possible to determine whether they occurred within six months of date charge filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31124 | 07/07/00 |
| 1360E | Los Angeles County Office of Education (Burton) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Government Code section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits the Board from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. Charging Party’s allegations as to her 1996 and 1997 grievances and suspension were time barred in a charge filed in 1999, and therefore outside of PERB’s jurisdiction. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31016 | 11/03/99 |
| 1535M | Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Tupou) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Board dismissed charge as untimely where discrimination allegedly occurred almost six years prior to the filing of the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 97 | 06/23/03 |
| 1377E | Los Angeles Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Government Code section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits the Board from issuing a complaint in respect of any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. From 1980 through 1984, Charging Party had a work overload for which he was not compensated. Additionally, in 1983 and 1984, Charging Party complained about release time he was not receiving. The instant charge regarding these matters was filed in May, 1999. As such, the charge was untimely and was dismissed. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31062 | 02/28/00 |
| 1337S | State of California (Water Resources Control Board) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The limitations period begins to run on the date the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent's clear intent to engage in the prohibited conduct. Charging Party heard rumors of a new policy and immediately began investigations outside the 6 month period. However the earliest date on the record that Charging Party had actually seen the new policy was within the statutory period. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30136 | 07/16/99 |
| 1372S | Union of American Physicians and Dentists (Schuman) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging Party alleged the UAPD unlawfully deducted union dues from March 1994 through June 1998. As this charge was filed in June 1999, more than a year after the last deduction, the charge was untimely under 3514.5(a)(1) and was dismissed. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31056 | 02/17/00 |
| 1488E | Service Employees International Union, Local 790 (Rax) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The Board adopted the portion of the Board agent’s dismissal that dismisses the charge as untimely based on the charging party’s knowlwdge that he knew of the grievance time limit in May 2000 and SEIU’s failure to file a grievance but didn’t file a charge until April 2001. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33099 | 07/08/02 |
| 1367H | Trustees of the California State University (Schmid). 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General An unfair practice must be filed with PERB within six months of its occurrence. (Gov. Code, sec. 3563.2(a).) PERB has held that the six-month period commences once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. Charging party's excuse for waiting seventeen years to file charge (lack of knowledge of PERB, the statutes enforced by PERB, or charging party's rights under those statutes) cannot cure a late filing. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31027 | 12/17/99 |
| 1366S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General An unfair practice must be filed with PERB within six months of its occurrence. (Gov. Code, sec. 3514.5(a).) PERB has held that the six-month period commences once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge; The charging party's lack of knowledge of PERB, the statutes enforced by PERB, or charging party's rights under those statutes does not excuse a late filing. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31028 | 12/17/99 |
| 1352E | American Federation of Teachers, et al. (Kok) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge was untimely because it was clear in October 1997 that union was not going to assist the charging party in pursuit of his grievance or request for arbitration. This charge was filed on more than 18 months later. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30172 | 09/29/99 |
| 1343E | United Faculty Association of North Orange County (Kiszely) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Where charging party waited over a year to file an unfair practice charge after receiving a copy of the arbitrator's opinion, the charge was untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30153 | 08/19/99 |
| 1328S | State of California (Department of Mental Health) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge was dismissed as untimely pursuant to Government Code section 3514.5(a) when alleged unlawful conduct occurred more than six months before date charge was filed; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30100 | 04/26/99 |
| 1307E | Orange Unified Education Association, California Teachers Association (Rossmann, et al.) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General A charge alleging violation of duty of fair representation under EERA must comport with section 3541.5(a)(1) which provides that PERB shall not issue a complaint in any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. It is not the charging party's knowledge of the law which starts the statute of limitations running. It starts to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the activities allegedly violating EERA; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30045 | 01/14/99 |
| A270E | Davis Teachers Association (Heffner) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Timeliness cannot be waived either by the parties or the Board itself and need not be plead affirmatively but is part of the charging party's burden of proof; p. 5, ALJ's order. Limitations period begins when charging party has actual or constructive notice of respondent's clear intent and nothing subsequent evinces waivering; Charging party's failure to understand the legal significance of the actions taken against him until later does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing; p. 6, ALJ's order. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27002 | 11/07/95 |
| A222E | Inglewood Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Motion to dismiss complaint on the basis of untimeliness is not appealable to the Board itself at the pre-hearing stage under PERB Regulation 32646. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22110 | 06/24/91 |
| 1303E | Coachella Valley Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge filed in July 1997 alleging discrimination in January 1997 does not comport with section 3541.5(a) which provides that PERB shall not issue a complaint in any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; p. 4, dismissal letter. A charge which does not provide a clear and concise statement of the alleged retaliatory conduct by the employer does not state a prima facie violation of the EERA; p. 4, dismissal letter; p. 6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30027 | 12/11/98 |
| 1302E | Coachella Valley Federation of Teachers, California Federation of Teachers/American Federation of Teachers (Kok) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge filed on July 21, 1997 alleging violation of duty of fair representation under EERA because last contract with exclusive representative was prior to June 1996 did not comport with section 3541.5(a) which provides that PERB shall not issue a complaint in any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occuring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30026 | 12/11/98 |
| 1289E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Seliga) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party bears burden of proving that charge is timely filed - specific dates of violation must be alleged to meet burden; p. 4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29171 | 10/08/98 |
| 1281E | Peralta Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The six-month statute of limitations commences to run when the charging parties knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice. The charging party must file a charge when it has actual or constructive notice of a clear intent to implement the action which constitutes the basis for the unfair practice, provided that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent. The charging party may not wait until actual implementation occurs. Charge was timely filed, although it alleged that on a certain date the charging parties knew that they had been assigned to positions they considered undesirable, it was not until a later date within the stautory period that they learned that other employees allegedly received preferable assignments. Since it is this alleged disparate treatment which forms the basis of the charge, the relevant date is received preferable assignments. Since it is this alleged disparate treatment which forms the basis of the charge, the relevant date is more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29150 | 08/27/98 |
| 1266E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Service Employees International Union Local 99) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge alleging unilateral change untimely because charging party admitted in prior charge that it had knowledge of the change more than six months prior to filing of the present charge; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29098 | 06/05/98 |
| 1255H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Six-month time limitation for unilateral change allegation begins to run when Association has actual or constructive knowledge of the unilateral change, not when change actually occurs, p. 30, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29066 | 03/20/98 |
| 1256E | Val Verde Unified School District (Twyman) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party bears the burden of proving that the charge is timely filed; p. 2, warning letter. Lack of knowledge about PERB and the laws it enforces does not toll the six months limitations period; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29068 | 03/24/98 |
| 1257E | Val Verde Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Twyman) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party bears the burden of proving that the charge is timely filed; p. 2, warning letter. Lack of knowledge about PERB and the laws it enforces does not toll the six months limitations period. A letter of dissatisfaction from the charging party to the union during the six months preceding the filing of the charge does not change the result; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29069 | 03/24/98 |
| 1254E | Service Employees International Union, Local 790 (Patterson) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party's letters complaining of union's failure to adequately represent her demonstrate that charging party knew of union's alleged lack of care or concern more than six months before filing the charge thus the charge is untimely; p. 6, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29065 | 03/20/98 |
| 1244S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Association of Professional Scientists) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In case involving unilateral change in vision benefits, limitation period does not begin to run until Union was notified of change in benefits to employees; notice that State intended to award new vision service plan contract was insufficient; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29045 | 01/27/98 |
| 1232E | Chula Vista Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Visalia Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2806 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Government Code section 3541.5(a)(1) precludes the Board from issuing a complaint in respect of any charge based on an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; p. 7, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29012 | 11/19/97 |
| 1228E | Little Lake School District (Garcia) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits the Board from issuing a complaint based on an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; p. 3, warning letter. Sending a letter to PERB does not stay the statute of limitations; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29008 | 11/13/97 |
| 1230E | Centinela Valley Union High School District (Garcia) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits the Board from issuing a complaint based on an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29010 | 11/13/97 |
| 1197S | State of California (Department of Insurance) (Nylander-McGuire) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The Charging Party bears the burden of demonstrating the charge has been filed within the six months statute of limitations period; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28094 | 05/06/97 |
| 1191E | Bakersfield City School District (Guerra) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party bears burden of proving charge timely filed; p. 1, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28071 | 04/03/97 |
| 1196E | Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Vercher) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General When alleged duty of fair representation violation occurred more than six months prior to filing of charge, charge is untimely and PERB lacks jurisdiction; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28092 | 05/02/97 |
| 1182H | Regents of University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The six-month statute of limitations is jurisdictional. The parties cannot waive it and need not affirmatively plead the defense; p. 4, p. 16, proposed dec. The charging party must establish timeliness as part of its prima facie case; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28045 | 01/31/97 |
| 1173H | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Shek) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Six month period commences when charging party knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the allege unfair practice; p. 6, warning letter. Charging party's attempt to work with union after it refuses to arbitrate claim does not extend the date of discovery. Charging party's prosecution of a civil suit involving the same claim alleged in the unfair practice charge does not toll the six month time period; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28005 | 10/31/96 |
| 1172S | State of California (Department of Transportation) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Alleged reprisals occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge are dismissed as untimely filed; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28002 | 10/29/96 |
| 1152H | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Dehler) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mount Diablo Education Association (Scott) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2127 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mount Diablo Education Association (Scott) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2127, where the Board held that a violation of the duty of fair representation may be established based on inaction that occurred more than six months before a charge is filed, provided the inaction was part of the same course of conduct as inaction within the statutory limitations period. * * *HEERA section 3563.2(a) bars PERB from issuing a complaint for conduct which occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; p. 5. The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27102 | 05/29/96 |
| 1147E | Mt. San Jacinto College Faculty Association (Vasek) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party's lack of awareness of the EERA or PERB does not give PERB authority over conduct that precedes the statute of limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27064 | 03/15/96 |
| 1150S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) (International Union of Operating Engineers) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Although Regulation 32140 requires that service shall be concurrent with the filing in question, Board exercised its discretion to excuse noncompliance since (1) delay in service was fairly brief and (2) there was no showing of prejudice to other party; fn. 2 at pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27087 | 05/09/96 |
| 1139S | State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles) (Petrella) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The charge does not allege any conduct by the employer within the six-month limitations period; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27045 | 02/21/96 |
| 1128E | Oakland Education Association (Bennett) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The allegation that the union refused to file a grievance on behalf of the charging party occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. Therefore, PERB lacks authority to issue a complaint concerning this allegation; p. 6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27016 | 12/08/95 |
| 1113E | West Valley-Mission Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Where two employees allegedly laid off for discriminatory reasons, the statute of limitation begins to run when they were made aware that they would be laid off. The fact that the District negotiated over the reduction in hours or layoff of other employees on the list does evidence a wavering of intent on the layoff of these two employees; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26124 | 08/31/95 |
| 1081E | San Francisco Community College District (Leptich) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party failed to demonstrate that an untimely amendment of a charge should be excused for good cause under PERB 32136; p. 2. Filing a charge with the NLRB does not constitute a filing with this Board as to make amended charge timely; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26040 | 01/12/95 |
| 1034E | Mt. Diablo Unified School District (Dyogi) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Limitations period begins when employee learns he is going to be terminated, not when he learns that the employer would definitely not rehire him or when a replacement is hired; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25031 | 01/13/94 |
| 1023H | University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The statutory limitations period begins to run when the charging party knows, or should have known, of the alleged unlawful action. It is not delayed until the UC chancellor approves the unlawful action; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25007 | 11/03/93 |
| 1024E | Tehachapi Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging party failed to meet its burden of alleging dates to show that the alleged unlawful conduct occurred within the six-month limitations period; pp. 3-4. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25008 | 11/04/93 |
| 1009S | California State Employees Association (Roberts) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General The Board agent dismissed several allegations as the conduct alleged did not occur nor was it discovered within the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the charge; p. 3, dismissal letter and p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24144 | 08/18/93 |
| 0959S | California State Employees Association (Finch) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General As all allegations in unfair practice charge occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge, Board agent properly dismissed charge; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24002 | 11/20/92 |
| 0951H | California Faculty Association (Shvyrkov) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General No evidence to support Charging Party's claim that charge was timely filed; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23141 | 09/04/92 |
| 0907H | Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Employees who appear at a grievance meeting as grievants are not considered agents of the union for purposes of notice absent evidence that they were grievance representatives of the union. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22166 | 10/01/91 |
| 0902E | San Diego Teachers Association (Hernandez) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General As the alleged conduct occurred beyond the six-month statute of limitations, the unfair practice charge must be dismissed; p. 4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22152 | 09/19/91 |
| 0894E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Mego) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General As the alleged conduct occurred beyond the six-month statute of limitations, the unfair practice charge must be dismissed; dismissal letter, p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22125 | 07/29/91 |
| 0886E | California Teamsters (Fieger) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General As all the alleged conduct occurred beyond the six-month statute of limitations, the unfair practice charge must be dismissed. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22104 | 06/14/91 |
| 0858H | Regents of the University of California (Smith) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge dismissed as untimely filed; termination and harassment preceding filing of charge occurred over 16 months before charge filed; p. 2, warning letter. Period not extended by later events and information that neither constituted or revealed additional adverse actions; p. 2, dismissal letter. Requirement that a complaint shall not issue based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge is jurisdictional and cannot be waived; p. 1, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22011 | 12/17/90 |
| 0812S | State of California (Secretary of State) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Failure to file a charge within six months of the alleged unfair practice is a jurisdictional prerequisite which if not met requires the dismissal of the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21115 | 06/07/90 |
| 0813H | California State University (Wang) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Board affirmed dismissal of unfair practice charge as being untimely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21116 | 06/13/90 |
| 0810S | State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) * * * OVERRULED by State of California (Department of Corrections) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1100-S 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General * * * OVERRULED by State of California (Department of Corrections) (1995) PERB Decision No. 1100-S, where the Board held that pre-arbitration deferral is based on the conduct underlying the unfair practice charge, not the particular code sections alleged to have been violated. * * *Since contract provision mirrors language of 3519(a), claim of denial of "Weingarten rights" deferred to arbitration, but concurrent claim of denial of employee organization rights not covered by contract is not deferred; pp. 4-7. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21114 | 06/04/90 |
| 0772S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)(Moore) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Statute of limitations is jurisdictional. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20210 | 09/29/89 |
| 0762S | State of California (Department of Health Services) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge alleging discrimination dismissed; conduct occurred outside 6 month limitation period; warning letter, p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20192 | 09/13/89 |
| 0745S | California Association of Psychiatric Technicians (Long) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Events prior to certification of a union will not be shielded from unfair charges unless they also occurred prior the six month statutory period of limitation; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20135 | 06/20/89 |
| 0718H | California State University, San Diego * * * OVERRULED by Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564, and Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564, where the Board held that the six-month statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and thus may be equitably tolled, and by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359, where the Board held that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that may be waived. * * *Board held that HEERA section 3563.2(a) constitutes a jurisdictional bar to charges filed outside its prescribed six month time period. Board disapproves of any application of PERB Regulation 32644 making the untimeliness of unfair practice charge an affirmative defense subject to a party's waiver. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20037 | 01/17/89 |
| 0711E | San Marcos Educators Association, CTA/NEA (Duran-Chugon) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Board affirmed RA dismissal on the ground that charge was not filed within six months of the alleged unlawful conduct by the association. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20019 | 12/21/88 |
| 0694H | Regents of the University of California (Waters) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charging Party required to file charge within six months of the alleged violation or when it was reasonably discovered. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19137 | 07/26/88 |
| 0615H | Regents of the University of California (Yeary) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Evidence of events occurring outside statutory period may be received as background in order to shed light on character of events occurring within 6 month period. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18060 | 03/03/87 |
| 0598E | Associated Teachers of Metropolitan Riverside (Petrich) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Most of alleged violations occurred beyond six month statute of limitation; those which are not contain no factual support. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18013 | 12/22/86 |
| 0591H | International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501 (Reich) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General No prima facie case where alleged improper conduct by the union occurred 17 months prior to filing of the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17167 | 10/03/86 |
| 0579E | Lucia Mar Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General General, unsupported assertion that regional attorney misled charging party regarding tolling of statute rejected. Phone contact with regional attorney during limitations period no substitute for timely filing of charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17128 | 06/27/86 |
| 0545S | California State Employees Association (Lemmons and Lund) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge untimely where last request to pursue grievance outside limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17017 | 12/13/85 |
| 0546S | California State Employees Association (Darzins) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge untimely where all allegations of union misconduct occurred more than 6 months prior to filing of charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17018 | 12/13/85 |
| 0547E | Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General All allegedly unlawful conduct occurred outside limitation period. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17022 | 12/16/85 |
| 0548E | Oakdale Union Elementary School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Alleged retaliatory dismissal occurred outside limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17023 | 12/16/85 |
| 1735S | State of California (Department of Transportation) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General As the charge was filed July 13, 2004, the allegation regarding the November 28, 2003 warning letter was untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 55 | 01/19/05 |
| 1220E | Duarte Unified Education Association (Fox) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General A statement made more than six months prior to the filing of the charge cannot be considered as a separate violation because it falls outside the statute of limitations; p. 21, proposed decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28160 | 09/26/97 |
| 1221H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore) * * * OVERRULED IN PART BY The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *Absent evidence of delayed discovery, Board could not issue a complaint on conduct occurring more than one year before assertion of allegation at hearing; p. 10. Six-month time limitation applies equally to attempts to raise conduct for the first time at hearing as to filing or amending charge; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28161 | 09/26/97 |
| 1211E | Stockton Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General In unilateral change case, charging party either knew or should have known that a prior search reflected District policy given that the association had contacted the District's director of secondary education and chief of policies. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28124 | 06/24/97 |
| 0512E | Riverside Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge untimely where original unit determination made seven years previous and no charged circumstances alleged. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16158 | 06/21/85 |
| 0501E | San Francisco Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Burden of alleging sufficient facts to support charge rests on charging party; failure to allege conduct within six month period fatal to charge. Obligation to allege when complained of conduct occurs arises from EERA, not regional attorney's warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16120 | 04/17/85 |
| 0502E | San Francisco Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Burden of alleging sufficient facts to support charge rests on charging party; failure to allege conduct within six month period fatal to charge. Obligation to allege when complained of conduct occurs arises from EERA, not regional attorney's warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16121 | 04/17/85 |
| 0439E | Los Angeles County Building and Construction Trades Council (Jones) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge filed nearly 12 months after alleged misconduct is untimely. R.A. dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16001 | 11/27/84 |
| 0332E | Reed District Teachers Association (Reyes) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Statute of limitations applies to conduct alleged to violate duty of fair representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14224 | 08/15/83 |
| 0271E | Lemoore Union High School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Statute of limitations does not preclude consideration of events occurring prior to the time period if such evidence sheds light on the alleged violation; pp. 36-37, proposed dec. Using test in Carlsbad USD (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, Board determined that District discriminated against charging party in the selection of vice principal position; pp. 33-36, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14026 | 12/28/82 |
| 0978E | Fresno County Office of Education * * * OVERRULED by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General * * * OVERRULED by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M, where the Board held that the continuing violation doctrine and new wrongful act doctrine are separate statute of limitations exceptions and must be analyzed separately. For continuing violation doctrine to apply, charging party need not allege or prove a new wrongful act within the limitations period. * * *Party failed to file charge during the six-month statutory period; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24052 | 03/09/93 |
| 0103E | Santa Monica Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Charge dismissed as untimely filed; pp. 23-25. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10123 | 09/21/79 |
| 0038E | Azusa Unified School District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Unwillingness by employer to respond to changed conditions caused by organizational campaign constitutes independent basis for charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 1 | 587 | 11/23/77 |
| 0946E | United Teachers-Los Angeles (Moszkowski) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General PERB may not issue a charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occuring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23100 | 06/30/92 |
| 0931S | Association of California State Attorneys (Winston) 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General As all allegations in unfair practice charge occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge, Board agent properly dismissed charge; p. 3, warning letter. Board agent's statement to charging party that he "had one year to file" did not clearly refer to the filing of an unfair practice charge and did not excuse charging party's responsibility to timely file his unfair practice charge; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23072 | 05/14/92 |
| 0915E | Compton Community College District 1101.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; In General Unfair practice charge untimely when filed more than six months after date charging parties knew or should have known of district's ratification of full and complete contract which constituted a rejection of the tentative agreement on retirement bonuses; pp. 6-7. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23012 | 12/20/91 |