All notes for Subtopic 1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2806E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Visalia Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The limitations period begins to run on the date the charging party knew, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District (1996) PERB Decision No. 1177, p. 4.) The limitations period for a unilateral change allegation begins to run when the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s clear intent to implement the change in policy, provided there is no conduct after that date evincing a wavering of such intent. (Regents of the University of California (Davis) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2101-H, p. 16.) (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 12/20/22 | ||
| 2758M | County of Ventura 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period PERB will consider bargaining conduct that occurs outside the statute of limitations period if there is also challenged conduct occurring within the limitations period. Such an approach is necessary because “[a]rtificially removing from consideration any bargaining conduct older than six months for any purpose is antithetical to the ‘totality of the bargaining conduct’ analysis.” (County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M, p. 9, fn. 5, quoting Anaheim Union High School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2434, adopting proposed decision at p. 58.) However, when none of the respondent’s conduct during the limitations period evinces bad faith, evidence from outside the limitations period cannot be used to “reviv[e] a legally defunct unfair practice charge.” (Anaheim, supra, PERB Decision No. 2434, adopting proposed decision at p. 56.) (pp. 35-36.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 87 | 03/23/21 |
| 2738H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2721M | County of San Diego 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2626E | Orcutt Union Elementary School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Under EERA section 3541.5, subd. (a)(2), the limitations period is subject to statutory tolling during the time it takes to exhaust any grievance machinery that ends in binding arbitration and that covers the matter at issue in the unfair practice charge. (p. 4, fn. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 140 | 02/22/19 |
| 2626E | Orcutt Union Elementary School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The limitations period may be equitably tolled while the parties utilize a non-binding dispute resolution procedure if: (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. (pp. 4-5) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 140 | 02/22/19 |
| 2475E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Raines, et al) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2283E | Jurupa Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2281M | City of Berkeley 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 52 | 08/17/12 |
| 2245I | California Media Workers Guild/Communications Workers of America/Local 39521 (Zhang) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In cases involving the duty of fair representation, the six-month limitations period begins to run when the charging party, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely; once the statute begins to run, the charging party cannot cause it to begin anew by making the same request over and over again; repeated refusals by a union to provide assistance also do not start the statute of limitations from running anew; nor does a charging party’s complaint to a higher-level union official extend the limitations period; where charge filed in February 2011 alleged that charging party contacted the union for assistance between September 2007 and January 2010, that charging party knew or should have known that further assistance was unlikely at the latest when she received a letter from the union in May 2008 informing her that her right to challenge the union’s decision not to represent her was at a local membership meeting, and that the union consistently declined to represent her, the charge failed to establish that it was timely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 148 | 04/06/12 |
| 2198M | Alameda County Management Employees Association (Harper) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2262E | Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Union had actual notice of a change in disciplinary policy when employee was dismissed for failing to disrobe during a drug test. Policy was adopted several years prior, but Union was not notified of the adoption at that time. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 176 | 05/08/12 |
| 2242M | County of Sonoma 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2155M | County of Orange * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Santa Clara Valley Water District (2013) Decision No. 2349- M 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Santa Clara Valley Water District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2349-M. * * *Under the equitable tolling doctrine, the statute of limitations will be tolled if: (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. | 35 | 24 | 01/18/11 |
| 2133E | United Faculty of Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (Tarvin) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2166M | Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2131S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Ventura Youth Correctional Facility) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Charge was timely filed by facsimile within six months of when charging party learned of the alleged unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 138 | 09/21/10 |
| 2101H | Regents of the University of California (Davis) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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. 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. | 34 | 55 | 03/01/10 |
| 2092E | Desert Sands Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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. This limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. A charging party must file a charge when it has actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral 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. | 34 | 39 | 02/01/10 |
| 2084H | Regents of the University of California (Los Angles) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2042M | County of San Diego (Health and Human Services) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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. Charge alleging that a school district engaged in retaliation by issuing a “statement of charges” suspending an employee without pay and dismissing him at the expiration of thirty days unless he requested a hearing was untimely as to the suspension, since it was filed more than six months after the suspension became effective. However, the charge was timely as to the dismissal, where the employee exercised his right to a hearing before the Commission on Professional Competence and the dismissal did not become effective until the Commission issued its decision dismissing the employee from employment, which was within the six-month limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 161 | 09/25/09 |
| 2052M | Nevada Irrigation District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Six-month limitations period was not equitably tolled because the dispute was different. The dispute in the grievance concerned the termination of an employee whereas the Union’s unfair practice charge alleged a unilateral change of the memorandum of understanding. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 134 | 07/23/09 |
| 2068E | Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (DeLarge) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The only action alleged to have occurred within the six month statute of limitations was charging party's request to the union for assistance at her hearing before the personnel commission. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 164 | 09/29/09 |
| 1968M | Orange County Fire Authority 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2046E | Alvord Educator's Association (Bussman) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In the absence of any evidence that the independent union, California Teachers Association (CTA) was an agent of Respondent union, communications between Charging Party and CTA discussing the possibility of representation by CTA, have no effect on computation of the statute of limitations on duty of fair representation claims against the Respondent. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 128 | 06/30/09 |
| 2056M | Teamsters Locals 78 and 853 (Hinek) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1987I | Region 4 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee and the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Under the Trial Court Interpreter Act, interpreters in full- or part-time positions and court interpreters pro tempore on an as needed basis without benefits are considered trial court employees. Although the Trial Court Interpreter Act contains provisions granting certain rights to non-employee independent contractors, independent contractor interpreters are not considered trial court employees, and do not have collective bargaining rights. Therefore, a labor organization lacks standing to bring charge on behalf of an independent contractor alleging violations of the Trial Court Interpreter Act. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 9 | 11/21/08 |
| 2050M | Service Employees International Union Local 721 (Hagans and Toole) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In a charge alleging violation of the duty of fair representation and bad faith negotiation under the MMBA, charge failed to contain any allegations of unlawful activity within six months prior to filing the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 131 | 07/20/09 |
| 2051M | Service Employees International Union Local 721 (Hagens and Toole) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In a charge alleging violation of the duty of fair representation and bad faith negotiation under the MMBA, charge failed to contain any allegations of unlawful activity within six months prior to filing the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 132 | 07/20/09 |
| 2036M | City of Alhambra 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period While an employer’s official notice to the union is a factor in determining whether the employer made an unlawful unilateral change, such notice is not required in determining whether the charge was filed within the statute of limitations; rather the question is whether the union had or should have had knowledge. Union had knowledge of handbook provisions and memoranda reflecting City’s long-established policies and practices regarding firefighter duties and driver’s license requirements for many years prior to filing charge. 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Even if equitable tolling applied, unfair practice charge under HEERA would still be untimely, where charge was not filed until nearly one year after conclusion of grievance procedure. 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 106 | 06/11/09 |
| 2035M | Solano County Fair Association 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In a charge alleging wrongful termination based on retaliation for protected activity under the MMBA, the six month statute of limitations period does not begin to run until the date of actual termination. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 102 | 06/09/09 |
| 2025M | Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West (Rivera) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 2002E | Long Beach Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359. * * * Six-month limitations period was equitably tolled while parties utilized written interim grievance procedure. Even though charging party never formally invoked the interim grievance procedure, the parties’ conduct was consistent with the steps set forth in the procedure. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 36 | 01/30/09 |
| 1960M | South Placer Fire Protection District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1974H | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Owens) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1944M | South Placer Fire Protection District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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. 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1904M | State Bar of California 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The statute of limitations for an unfair practice charge based upon termination of employment begins to run on the date of actual termination. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 96 | 05/08/07 |
| 1868M | County of Orange * * * OVERRULED by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * 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. As long as the employer policy or local rule continues in effect, charging party can bring claim that it interferes with or discriminates against protected rights or constitutes an unreasonable local rule, irrespective of when employer promulgated it. * * *The Board has long recognized the continuing violation doctrine. However, 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. In other words, a continuing violation will only be found when the wrongdoer engages in active conduct (i.e., new wrongful act) within the limitations periods that independently constitutes an unfair practice. Thus, in order to invoke the continuing violation doctrine, the offending party must commit a new wrongful act, and this act must be timely challenged by the charging party. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 29 | 12/15/06 |
| 1866H | Trustees of the California State University (Humboldt) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The six-month statute of limitations period began running when the charging party was aware of a reorganization which he alleges ultimately led to his layoff; his charge, filed four years later, was untimely filed. The six-month statute of limitations began running when the charging party was threatened by his supervisor and laid off; his charge, filed more than a year later, was untimely filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 26 | 12/14/06 |
| 1848S | State of California (Department of Corrections) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M. * * *The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 150 | 08/09/06 |
| 1828E | Los Banos Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Charging party must file an unfair practice charge within six months of the alleged illegal act occurring. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 86 | 03/09/06 |
| 1835S | State of California (Department Of Transportation) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1804H | Regents of the University of California 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period It is well-settled that the limitations period begins to run once a charging party knows or should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. In addition, 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. | 30 | 44 | 01/04/06 |
| 1790S | Stationary Engineers Local 39 (Quigley) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 31 | 12/21/05 |
| 1736S | California State Employees Association (Chen) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1692E | Salinas Union High School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1590H | Regents of the University of California (Davis) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The charge was timely filed under the recent ruling in Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1585-H, in which the date of actual termination, not the notice of termination, triggers the statute of limitations in discrimination cases. The employees were actually laid off less than six months before filing the charge and therefore the charge is timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 67 | 01/26/04 |
| 1687E | Visalia Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In a constructive discharge case, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the employee effectively communicates the decision to resign, not the date the employee subjectively decides to resign more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 251 | 09/09/04 |
| 1681M | City of Beverly Hills 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Board found untimely an unfair practice charge challenging a local agency rule adopted over 20 years prior. The fact that local agency rule was adopted during the tenure of a previous exclusive representative does not provide the current exclusive representative a new limitations period. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 225 | 08/20/04 |
| 1650E | Empire Union School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1559S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Charge is untimely where charging party filed a grievance and received a response in December 2000. Union refuseed to arbitrate in February 2001 and charge is filed in December 2002. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 15 | 11/21/03 |
| 1568E | Long Beach Community College District * * * OVERRULED by Long Beach Community College District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1941 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Long Beach Community College District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1941. * * *It is the Association’s knowledge that the District intended to unilaterally contract out work that triggers the statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 33 | 12/18/03 |
| 1612E | Santa Rosa Junior College 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1593S | California State Employees Association (Toran) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Board dismissed charge alleging that union failed to adequately advise charging party of consequences of settlement agreement where settlement agreement was signed more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 78 | 02/09/04 |
| 1564E | Long Beach Community College District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1517H | Coalition of Unviersity Employees (Buxton) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The six-month limitations period begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice. The allegations in this case indicate that the University’s response to Buxton’s grievance and the information contained in the response were only known to Buxton during the statutory period and so her charge is timely. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 51 | 04/07/03 |
| 1471E | State Center Community College District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Refusal to provide home telephone numbers of unit members constituted a violation of union's right to the telephone numbers, therefore as the charge was filed within six-months of denial of a request for the home telephone numbers, the charge is timely; p. 14, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33027 | 12/12/01 |
| 1450E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Charge untimely because it was filed more than six months after date identified by employer as deadline for employee organization to state its objections to new policies and procedures manual. Employer made it clear that it intended to proceed with implementing the manual after that date. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32090 | 06/25/01 |
| 1441E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Hopper) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Discovery of the legal significance of conduct of which a party has knowledge does not constitute belated discovery for purposes of EERA's statute of limitations. Charging party offered nothing to explain why it took her some eleven years (date when she had been a new teacher) to file the unfair practice charge, other than that she learned of the legal and constitutional issues regarding the alleged unfair labor practice in May of 2000. Such a claim does not save the charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32074 | 05/31/01 |
| 1403S | State of California (Department of Youth Authority) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period When employee was ranked seventh on promotional list was date she was clearly informed of her failure to be selected for the position; p. 27, proposed dec. Statute is not triggered by memo to charging party indicating she would be investigated for possible adverse action. Statute starts running when employee met with investigators and learned specifics of charge; p. 29, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31146 | 09/12/00 |
| 1408S | California Association of Professional Scientists (Torba) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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. Late discovery of a contractual summary did not toll the statute; pp. 1-2, dismissal letter, p. 1, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31162 | 09/27/00 |
| 1424E | Oxnard Educators Association (Gibbons) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1390S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Here there was no credible evidence to support the contention that the Association's knowledge of staffing patterns in satellite kitchens at California State Prison Sacramento, which were at issue in another unfair practice charge, made the Association aware of future staffing patterns in other prisons. There was also no evidence that anyone at the Association who had the authority to act on behalf of the organization received actual notice or had constructive knowledge of the proposed staffing patterns more than six months before the charge was filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31111 | 06/26/00 |
| 1391S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Here there was no credible evidence to support the contention that the Association's knowledge of staffing patterns in satellite kitchens at California State Prison Sacramento, which were at issue in another unfair practice charge, made the Association aware of future staffing patterns in other prisons. There was also no evidence that anyone at the Association who had the authority to act on behalf of the organization received actual notice or had constructive knowledge of the proposed staffing patterns more than six months before the charge was filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31112 | 06/26/00 |
| 1392S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Here there was no credible evidence to support the contention that the Association's knowledge of staffing patterns in satellite kitchens at California State Prison Sacramento, which were at issue in another unfair practice charge, made the Association aware of future staffing patterns in other prisons. There was also no evidence that anyone at the Association who had the authority to act on behalf of the organization received actual notice or had constructive knowledge of the proposed staffing patterns more than six months before the charge was filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31113 | 06/26/00 |
| 1358E | Los Angeles County Education Association, CTA/NEA (Burton) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Statute of limitations begins to run on the date the employee, acting with reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. Repeated refusals to process a grievance over a recurring issue do not start the limitations period anew. Union unequivocally stated, in April and May of 1997, that it would not pursue employee's grievance further. Charge filed in March of 1999 was therefore untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31002 | 10/27/99 |
| 1337S | State of California (Water Resources Control Board) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1459S | State of California 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The Dills Act states that PERB may not issue a complaint on an underlying charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months before the filing of the charge. This limitations period is mandatory, and is a jurisdictional bar to charges filed outside the six-month period. The limitations period begins to run once a charging party knows or should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. PERB has determined that a charging party's belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing; p. 6. The doctrine of equitable tolling, under which the statutory limitations period is tolled while a charging party pursues an alternative legal remedy, is not applicable to the statutes administered by PERB; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32108 | 08/29/01 |
| 1458E | Sacramento City Teachers Association (Marsh) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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. The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. The charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. For an allegation of the breach of the duty of fair representation, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the employee, acting with reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely; p. 4, dismissal letter. 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 |
| 1461E | Sacramento City Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits the Board 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; p. 7, warning letter. The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. The charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed; p. 7, warning letter. The limitations period is tolled during the time it takes the charging party to exhaust any contractual grievance machinery through settlement or binding arbitration. The statute is tolled once a grievance is filed, but only to the conduct contained in the grievance. The statute begins to run again once the grievance process is completed; p. 7, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32111 | 09/18/01 |
| 1475E | Long Beach Community College District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Under EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) employee and successor union had six months from the date it was aware of the community college district’s alleged changes in policy regarding arbitration to file an unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33042 | 02/15/02 |
| 1476E | California School Employees Association and its Chapter 8 (Thorpe, et al.) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Under EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) employee has six months from date her union advised her that it would no longer represent her on her grievance to file an unfair practice charge against her union. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33043 | 02/15/02 |
| 1363E | Coachella Valley Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Even accepting charging party's attempts to use the State Mediation Service and Action Dispute Resolution Services as part of the grievance procedure, more than six months had elapsed between the exhaustion of the grievance machinery and the filing of the charge in 1999; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31025 | 12/10/99 |
| 1327H | Regents of the University of California 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The six-month statute of limitations began to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice. Regents of the University of California (1983) PERB Decision No. 359-H. Here the statute began to run on May 1, 1996 when the employee received notice of termination. The University's March 28, 1997 offer to reinstate him as part of a settlement does evidence a waivering of intent. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30099 | 04/26/99 |
| A270E | Davis Teachers Association (Heffner) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The six-month period is to be computed by excluding the day the alleged misconduct took place and including the last day, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it also is excluded; p. 5, ALJ's order. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27002 | 11/07/95 |
| A074E | Sierra Joint Community College District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Code of Civil Procedure 1013 is not applicable to PERB. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10121 | 09/11/79 |
| 1306E | Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Cooke) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The statute of limitations begins to run on the date the employee, acting with reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance or response from the union was unlikely; p. 3, warning letter. Repeated union refusals to process a grievance over a recurring issue does not start the statute of limitations period anew; p. 4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30044 | 01/14/99 |
| 1296S | State of California (Department of Personnel Admin) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Adopting and publishing regulations changing travel reinbursement rates for excluded employees does not constitute constructive notice of change in past practice for unit members sufficient to start limitations period; p. 17, proposed dec; Employer mentioning during negotiations of proposed changes in excluded employees travel rules did not give notice to union that its members would not have the same changes applied to them under the expired contract clause. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30009 | 10/22/98 |
| 1290S | State of California (Department of Food and Agriculture) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The six-month statutory limitations period begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice, citing Regents of the University of California (1983) PERB Decision No. 359-H; p. 2, warning letter. Charge alleging State discriminated against employee by terminating his employment outside the statutory limitations period must be dismissed as untimely filed; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29172 | 10/08/98 |
| 1279S | State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration, et al. * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563 and County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M. * * *For a unilateral change, knowledge of a policy for one type of communication does not establish notice for another type of communication. Notice of a unilateral change at one department of the State does not constitute notice for any other department. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29148 | 08/21/98 |
| 1260S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) (California Department of Forestry Firefighters) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In a unilateral change case, the statute of limitations contained in section 3514.5 begins to run when the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent's clear intent to implement the alleged charge; p. 9, citing The Regents of the University of California (1990) PERB Decision No. 826-H. State's advisory to union that it intended to award new benefits contract, which did not provide union with any information concerning the specific aspects of the new plan or any information comparing the old and new plans, was not actual or constructive notice for purposes of computing the six-month period. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29083 | 04/20/98 |
| 1256E | Val Verde Unified School District (Twyman) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1255H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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. Board refuses to impute knowledge of unilateral change by unit members to the Association unit member filing grievance over issue when copy to Association was not sufficient to start statute running; pp. 30-31, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29066 | 03/20/98 |
| 1234E | Milpitas Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In a unilateral change case, the statute of limitations commences on the date the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent's clear intent to implement the change in policy and no subsequent wavering of respondent's intent. (Cloverdale Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 911.) The charging party need not await actual implementation of the change in policy to file a charge and should not rest on its rights. (Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1034.) When District representative informed exclusive representative that District had right to make the change without negotiating, union had actual notice of District's intent to make the change. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29013 | 11/20/97 |
| 1200E | San Jose Community College Faculty Association (Maestas-Flores) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) bars the issuance of a complaint for acts that occurred more than six months prior to filing of charges; p. 4, warning letter. Six-month period commences to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice; p. 4, warning letter. Reasonable person would not have waited nine months after making inquiry to discover that union did not intend to respond to request; p. 4, warning letter. Untimely charge is not revived by request for status report during statutory period; p. 2, dismissal letter; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28108 | 06/02/97 |
| 1192E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Summer) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Under EERA section 3541.5(a), the Board may not issue a complaint based on conduct occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; p. 1, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28072 | 04/09/97 |
| 1180E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Association of Public School Supervisory Employees) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Charging party has the burden to prove that it first knew or should have known of the violation within the six months prior to filing the charge. "Should have known" requires the exercise of reasonable diligence to discover the change. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28024 | 12/06/96 |
| 1181E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Service Employees International Union Local 99) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Union's knowledge of drug policy, violation of which would subject an employee to dismissal, starts the statute of limitations period for a unilateral change even where the employer applies the policy as a "zero tolerance" policy and later dismisses an employee under the new zero tolerance policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28025 | 12/10/96 |
| 1182H | Regents of University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The statute of limitations period begins to run when the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the employer's clear intent to implement a unilateral change in policy; p. 4 and 5; p. 16, proposed dec. When the exclusive representative requested bargaining after an employer stated that they would implement a shift change if they did not hear from the exclusive representative, the employer's statement did not give the exclusive representative notice of the employer's clear intent to implement the change; p. 6. The statute of limitations is computed by excluding the day the alleged misconduct took place, and including the last day, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded; p. 16, proposed dec. When the employer never notified the exclusive representative of a dec. When the employer never notified the exclusive representative of a employer implemented the change; p. 19, proposed dec. Unfair practice charge filed more than one year after an alleged abolition of a position and transfer of employees into another classification is untimely if the Charging Party fails to show it did not have knowledge of the change prior to the statute of limitations period; p. 20, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28045 | 01/31/97 |
| 1173H | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Shek) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Six month period commences when charging party knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged 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 |
| 1126S | California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by California State Employees Association (Hard, et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by California State Employees Association (Hard et al.) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1368-S, p. 28. * * *When a party shows a clear intent to take a disputed action against another, the harm occurs at that time and not when the wrongful act is completed; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27014 | 12/06/95 |
| 1131E | Salinas City Elementary School District (Rodriquez) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) bars the issuance of a complaint since acts occurred more than six months prior to filing of charges; p. 7, warning letter. Six-month period commences to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice (citation); p. 7, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27026 | 01/10/96 |
| 1113E | West Valley-Mission Community College District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1118E | Alum Rock Education Association (Kirkaldie) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period PERB has held that the six-month statute of limitations period commences to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice charge; p. 8, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26143 | 10/04/95 |
| 1101S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The charging party must file its charge within six months from the point at which it knew or should have known about the facts giving rise to the unfair practice. The date of the discovery is the date on which the conduct constituting the unfair practice is discovered or could reasonably have been discovered, not the date that the legal significance of the conduct is discovered; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26093 | 05/09/95 |
| 1094H | California State University (Academic Professionals of California) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Six month period for filing charge runs from the occurrence or discovery of the conduct allegedly constituting an unfair practice not from the discovery of the legal significance of the conduct; p. 2, dismissal letter where discovery was of the employer's policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26080 | 04/06/95 |
| 1092E | Marin Community College District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Actual notice of the union was not given by delivery of Board agendas listing salary schedule to the union; pp. 73-75, proposed dec. Proper notice requires an affirmative obligation on the part of the employer to tell the union of proposed changes in negotiable subjects; p. 78, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26070 | 03/21/95 |
| 1070E | Davis Teachers Association (Carlson) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Statue of limitation commences when party discovers that agency fee is due and owing and not the date when agency fees were actually deducted from paycheck. Six-month limitation period on allegation that employee was denied religious exemption runs from the date the employee becomes aware that agency fee will be deducted from the paycheck and not the date that the agency fees were actually deducted from the paycheck; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26025 | 11/29/94 |
| 1065E | San Jose Teachers Association (Allen) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The six-month period commences to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26007 | 11/04/94 |
| 1066S | State of California (Consumer Affairs) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The six-month limitation period commences to run when the charging party knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice; p. 4, warning letter. In a unilateral change case, the first implementation of the policy commences the six-month period and subsequent occasions when employees are required to adhere to the policy, so long as it does not change, do not revive the violation; p. 5, warning letter. The statute of limitations has been applied so as to prevent the charging party from engaging in a violation act which would create facts that might establish a new violation within the six-month period; p. 6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26009 | 11/08/94 |
| 1069H | Regents of the University of California (Chan) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period For charge to be timely, charging party must establish that she did not know, or did not have reason to know, of the employer's violation of her rights within six months of the filing of her unfair practice charge; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26024 | 11/28/94 |
| 1034E | Mt. Diablo Unified School District (Dyogi) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 1017E | Victor Elementary Teachers Association (Janssen) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Only alleged unfair practices occurring within six-months of filing the unfair practice charge are within PERB's jurisdiction; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24168 | 10/08/93 |
| 0969S | California State Employees Association (Mitchell) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The charge allegations either fail to set forth a date, or state a date which is beyond the six-month statute of limitations and must therefore be dismissed; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24038 | 02/04/93 |
| 0962S | State of California, Department of Youth Authority 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Charging parties allege numerous acts of unlawful reprisals and discrimination which occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. These allegations were dismissed as untimely; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24019 | 12/04/92 |
| 0959S | California State Employees Association (Finch) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period As charging party arguably knew or should have known of the exclusive representative's alleged unlawful conduct six months and one day before the charge was received in the PERB office, was filed outside the six month statute of limitations; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24002 | 11/20/92 |
| 0961H | University of California, Los Angeles (Wack) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The limitations period begins to run on the date charging party has notice of the respondent's intent to implement an alleged unfair practice; p. 4; pp. 1-2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24017 | 11/24/92 |
| 0911E | Cloverdale Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The six-month time period 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; p. 22. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22179 | 11/20/91 |
| 0951H | California Faculty Association (Shvyrkov) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 0886E | California Teamsters (Fieger) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Statute of limitations commences when charging party discovers the conduct constituting the unfair practice, not when he or she discovers the legal significance of that conduct; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22104 | 06/14/91 |
| 0887E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Kesley) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period EERA section 3541.5(a) bars issuance of a complaint based on an unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. Failure to be fully informed about the tolling doctrine and the fact that the employer's convinced charging party not to file additional grievances do not alter the statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22105 | 06/17/91 |
| 0888E | Palm Springs Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The six-month period commences when a charging party discovers the conduct constituting the unfair practice, not when he or she discovers the legal significance; p. 2, dismissal letter. Charge properly dismissed as untimely where charging party claiming discriminatory violation filed a charge over eight months after awareness of the alleged conduct constituting an unfair practice; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22106 | 06/18/91 |
| 0889E | Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, California Federation of Teachers/American Federation of Teachers (Violett) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In duty of fair representation cases, the six month limitation period runs from the date the charging party knew or reasonably should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22107 | 06/19/91 |
| 0885E | San Diego Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The statute of limitations does not preclude consideration of evidence of events occurring prior to the six-month time period where such evidence sheds light on the alleged violation. Requests for representation, occurring prior to the six-month period, are intertwined with the termination decision, and may be considered as background to charging party's temination; p. 38. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22103 | 06/14/91 |
| 0877E | Los Rios Community College District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Limitation period begins to run on duty of fair representation charges on the date when the employee, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the exclusive representative was unlikely; p. 10. Charges properly dismissed as untimely where charging parties claiming DFR violation during negotiations filed charges six months and one day after ratification of new contract by membership; pp. 10-11. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22083 | 05/16/91 |
| 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 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * 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 six-month period begins to run when the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondents' clear intent to implement a unilateral change in policy, provided that nothing subsequent to that date evidences a waivering of intent. This is a new test in this area. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21142 | 07/03/90 |
| 0812S | State of California (Secretary of State) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Charging party's claim was filed four days late under the formula established in Saddleback Valley Unified School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 558 which established a formula for calculating the statutory six-month period for filing a charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21115 | 06/07/90 |
| 0685E | Hacienda La Puente Unified School District * * * SUPERSEDED by amendment to EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (a) Stats. 1989, Ch. 313 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Stats. 1989, ch. 313, § 2. * * *Act of resignation must fall within 6-month Statute of Limitations period, because District's later acceptance within 6-month period was only a ministerial act. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19113 | 06/24/88 |
| 0684E | Los Rios Community College District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Statute does not begin to run until charging party has actual or constructive knowledge of allegedly illegal act. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19112 | 06/23/88 |
| 0683S | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 2620 (Moore) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period If final filing date falls on a Saturday, charge is timely if filed on the next working day. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19105 | 06/20/88 |
| 0605H | California State University, Fullerton 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Six month period is computed by excluding the day the alleged conduct took place and including the last day; p. 2-3, ALJ Order. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18024 | 12/31/86 |
| 0591H | International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501 (Reich) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Arbitrator's decision resulting in reinstatement is not the appropriate date to begin running of 6 month statute where improper union conduct occurred 11 months prior to arbitrator's decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17167 | 10/03/86 |
| 0570E | Victor Valley Community College District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Statutory period does not begin to run until charging party has actual or constructive notice; Board rejects argument that ratification of contract with disputed language triggered statute. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17091 | 05/02/86 |
| 0558E | Saddleback Valley Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In accord with CCP sec 12, 6 month period computed by excluding the day the alleged misconduct took place and including the last day, unless the last day is a holiday, and then it is also excluded. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17038 | 12/31/85 |
| 0544E | San Francisco Classroom Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Chestangue) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Limitations period runs from date conduct discovered, not from date of discovery of legal significance of conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17016 | 12/13/85 |
| 1947H | California Faculty Association (Onkvisit) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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. In May 2006, charging party was informed that the association would no longer pursue his grievance. The statute of limitations expired on November 2006, yet charging party did not file his charge until May 2007, nearly a year later. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 46 | 02/29/08 |
| 1754E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In termination cases the statute begins to run on the date of the actual termination. Charging party should have investigated the reasons given to him. Late filing under Regulation 32136 applies to the filings of papers with the Board not unfair practice charge filings. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 95 | 02/17/05 |
| 1214E | Bellflower Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Charge allegation that District bypassed BEA when it met with psychologists "a few days before the end of the year on June 20, 1996," was untimely, since BEA failed to establish that the June meeting with psychologists occurred within six months of dated charge filed (December 10, 1996); p. 6, dismissal letter. Since the charge does not say when District officials took action, it is not possible to determine whether the charge was timely filed; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28126 | 06/30/97 |
| 1211E | Stockton Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period 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 |
| 0497H | California State Employees Association (Calloway) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Limitation period runs from date of knowledge of complained of conduct, not from date of discovery of legal significance. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16101 | 03/14/85 |
| 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Date on which the incumbent employee was relieved of duties is date which starts the limitations period, not the date on which another non-unit employee replaced the incumbent; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | ||||
| 0400E | California School Employees Association-Chapter 507 (Spiegelman) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The period of limitations begins to run at the point when an injury to the charging party becomes fixed and reasonably certain. In a duty of fair representation proceeding, the period began to run when the employee knew that he was dissatisfied with the union's representation. The period does not date from the employee's receipt of a vague response from the union to his complaint about representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15153 | 08/23/84 |
| 0401E | Inglewood Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Charge dismissed as untimely where charging parties knew for nearly a year prior to filing about alleged change in sick leave verification requirements. Period of limitations commences to run when charging party knew or should have known of the disputed conduct; p. 32. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15154 | 08/29/84 |
| 0311E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Siamis) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Consistent with rationale in San Dieguito Union HSD (1982) PERB Decision No. 194, statute of limitation began running for the first time only upon the conclusion of the contractual grievance machinery; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14157 | 05/20/83 |
| 0289E | Walnut Valley Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Hearing officer can consider facts that occurred before the six-month period preceding the filing of the charge for the purpose of clarifying the actionable conduct; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14084 | 02/28/83 |
| 0271E | Lemoore Union High School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Although decision to deny promotional opportunity occurred outside 6 month statute of limitation, effect of that decision within limitation period is reviewable as a potential violation of EERA; p. 30, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14026 | 12/28/82 |
| 1002H | Regents of the University of California (Alderson) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The statutory limitation period does not begin to run when the unlawful action is to be implemented, but rather when the charging party knows, or should have known, of an agreement to take unlawful action; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24115 | 06/23/93 |
| 0996S | California State Employees Association (Katka) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period The six month period begins to run no later than the date the ballots are returned when the alleged violation is distribution of misleading ballot material. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24103 | 05/19/93 |
| 0944E | United Teachers Los Angeles (Ragsdale) * * * CLARIFIED by National Union of Healthcare Workers (2012) PERB Decision No. 2249-M 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period * * * CLARIFIED ON OTHER GROUNDS by National Union of Healthcare Workers (2012) PERB Decision No. 2249-M. * * *In duty of fair representation cases, the six month statutory period begins 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; p. 4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23098 | 06/23/92 |
| 0935E | Lindsay Teachers Association (Gonzalez) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Several allegations described conduct by the Association which occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. These allegations were dismissed as untimely; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23082 | 05/22/92 |
| 0936E | Lindsay Unified School District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Several allegations described conduct by the District which occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. These allegations were dismissed as untimely; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23083 | 05/22/92 |
| 0931S | Association of California State Attorneys (Winston) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period As charging party arguably knew or should have known of the exclusive representative's alleged unlawful conduct at, or before, the arbitration hearing, the statute of limitations does no begin to run on date when charging party received the arbitrator's decision; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23072 | 05/14/92 |
| 0925E | California School Employees Association (LaFountain) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In DFR case, a claim accrues when the employee, 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. | 16 | 23049 | 03/10/92 |
| 0926H | University of California (Kasbati) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Allegations in the charge fail to state a prima facie case as the alleged unfair practice occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; warning letter, p. 1. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23053 | 03/17/92 |
| 0923E | California School Employees Association (Professional School Bus Drivers Association) 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period In cases involving an alleged violation of the duty of fair representation, the six-month limitation generally begins to run when the employee or employees knew or should have known that further assistance from the exclusive representative was unlikely; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23038 | 02/19/92 |
| 0915E | Compton Community College District 1101.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Computation of Six-Month Period Ratification of full and complete contract, which failed to include tentative agreement on retirement bonuses, constituted notice to charging parties that district did not ratify the retirement bonus; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23012 | 12/20/91 |