All notes for Subtopic 1101.02000 – Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2747M | City of San Diego 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine Under the relation-back doctrine, a charging party may amend a charge to add alleged violations that it discovered more than six months earlier “if the amended charges are closely related to the actions in the original charge.” (Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2381, p. 37, quoting Gonzales Union High School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 410, pp. 19-20.) Because the Union raised the interference allegations within six months of discovering management’s’ e-mails, PERB did not need to determine whether the relation back doctrine would apply to these facts. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine The MMBA generally precludes PERB from issuing a complaint based on an unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. (Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1089-1092.) However, the limitations period begins to run once the charging party knew or reasonably should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. (United Teachers of Los Angeles (Raines, et al.) (2016) PERB Decision No. 2475, p. 57.) The Union’s amendment of its charge to add an interference claim was not barred by the statute of limitations where there was no dispute that the Union first learned of management’s internal e-mails (which formed the basis for the interference charge) by virtue of the City’s response to a subpoena, well within the six months prior to the Union’s request to amend the complaint. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2744E | San Jose/Evergreen Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 6157, and American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Crawford et al.) 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine When a charging party amends an unfair practice charge and thereby adds new allegations, the statute of limitations for the newly-added allegations is generally the six months prior to the date the charging party filed the amended charge, unless the new allegations relate back to the allegations in the initial charge, or another recognized exception applies. (County of Santa Barbara (2012) PERB Decision No. 2279-M, p. 10.) Newly-added factual allegations in an amended charge relate back to those in the initial charge if they clarify or provide further detail regarding the facts initially alleged or assert facts that are a logical and sequential manifestation of the same course of conduct initially alleged. (Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2381, pp. 37-39.) The relation back doctrine also allows a charging party to add new legal theories, provided that such new theories rely on allegations included in the initial charge and/or allegations that satisfy the relation back standard. (Id. at pp. 37-38.) The Board found several of the new allegations in the amended charge related back to allegations in the initial charge because they were a logical and sequential manifestation of the same course of conduct alleged in the initial charge, but other new allegations were untimely because they did not relate back to the initial charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 35 | 08/31/20 |
| 2475E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Raines, et al) 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine 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 |
| 2381E | Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine 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 |
| 2279M | County of Santa Barbara 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine Limitations period for new allegations contained in first amended charge extends back six months from filing date. Allegations in amended charge are therefore 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. 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. Further factual detail in amended charge cured weaknesses of initial charge regarding alleged retaliatory change in job duties and increased scrutiny. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 49 | 08/09/12 |
| 2246M | City of Santa Monica 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine An amendment “relates back” to the original charge only when it clarifies facts alleged in the original charge or adds a new legal theory based on facts alleged in the original charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 149 | 04/06/12 |
| 2236M | Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 29, AFL-CIO and Central Labor Councils (Fowles) 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine 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 |
| 1585H | Regents of the University of California 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine 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 |
| 1549E | Banning Unified School District 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine Board found good cause to accept charging party’s late-filed amended charge where Board agent initially provided incorrect due date and charging party was on vacation when notified of amended due date. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 136 | 10/09/03 |
| 1458E | Sacramento City Teachers Association (Marsh) 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine Statute of limitations for a new allegation contained in an amended charge begins to run based on filing date of amended charge not original charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32107 | 08/28/01 |
| A190E | Temple City Unified School District 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine Amendment "relates back" to original charge where it describes the same conduct and merely adds additional legal theory; pp. 8-10. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20157 | 07/12/89 |
| 1066S | State of California (Consumer Affairs) 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine A timely violation would not be found where the employer's conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice based on a necessary relation to the original offense. In cases where there is a relation back to previous conduct, some new conduct which is sufficiently independent of the original offense is required that will revive the viability of the unfair practice; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26009 | 11/08/94 |
| 1048E | Los Rios Community College District (Deglow) 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine The employer's continued refusal to correct the hire date is not active conduct which revives the timeliness of the charge. Even evidence of contemporaneous conduct which is indicative of an animus on the part of the employer toward the charging party cannot revive a charge based on conduct which occurred prior to the six-month limitation period; p. 4, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25098 | 06/01/94 |
| 1041E | Los Angeles Unified School District (United Teachers Los Angeles) 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine Under EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) PERB is precluded from issuing "a complaint in respect of any charge based upon alleged unfair practice occuring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge;" p. 7, dismissal letter. An exception to the statutory limitation of time may be made where an amended charge is found to "relate back" to the original charge because it adds a new legal theory but relies on facts alleged in the original charge; p. 7, dismissal letter. While salary differentials were reducted, the reduction is nowhere mentioned in any of the various unfair practice charges filed by the Union nor mentioned in the record and thus the factual issues are new, and rejected as being outside the statute of limitation; p. 9, dismissal letter. dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25055 | 03/17/94 |
| 0853H | California State University (Jenkins) 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine New allegations [raised in an amended charge] cannot be used to support the original charge, under the relation back doctrine, where the allegations are not alleged within six months of the original charge and no indication is provided as to how the new allegations are related to the original charge, if at all; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22000 | 12/05/90 |
| 0826H | Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers) * * * OVERRULED by Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564 and Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine * * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564 and Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359. * * *The doctrine of relation back does not apply to the facts of this case, because the violations on the Santa Cruz and the Los Angeles campuses did not arise out of the same course of conduct and there was no showing of a system-wide directive to all UC campuses. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21142 | 07/03/90 |
| 0640H | Regents of the University of California 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine Unalleged violation may not be entertained when conduct occurred more than 6 months prior to filing of original charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19007 | 12/10/87 |
| 0589E | Burbank Unified School District 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine No relation back where original charge only addresses unilateral change but does not address bad faith bargaining, which is subject of amended charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17161 | 09/25/86 |
| 1959E | Sacramento City Teachers Association (Franz) 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine An amendment relates back to the original charge only when it clarifies facts alleged in the original charge or adds a new legal theory based on facts alleged in the original charge. Amended charge did not relate back to original charge because original charge contained no factual allegations. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 86 | 05/30/08 |
| 1221H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore) * * * OVERRULED IN PART BY The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *New legal theories relate back to filing of original charge; new factual allegations do not; p. 10, fn. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28161 | 09/26/97 |
| 0918E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Association of Public School Supervisory Employees) 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine Relation Back Doctrine does not apply to facts of this case as allegations of retaliation and interference raised in amended complaint concerned events surrounding a demotion, and the allegations made in the original complaint concerned scheduling of a meeting regarding performance evaluation, i.e. a different issue based on a different event; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23016 | 01/07/92 |
| 0912E | Willits Unified School District 1101.02000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine Relation back doctrine applicable where original and amended charge based on the same central fact. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23002 | 12/05/91 |