All notes for Subtopic 1101.05000 – Parties; Service
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A444M | City of San Luis Obispo 1101.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Parties; Service Although PERB Regulation PERB Reg. 32164 governing applications for joinder as a part to an unfair practice charge contains no express time limit, an employer, employee organization or employee cannot use the joinder procedure to circumvent the six-month limitations period set forth in the statute and PERB Regulations. Where an employee organization could have filed its own timely unfair practice charge to challenge an employer action, but failed to do so within the limitations period, it cannot later join the proceedings initiated by another organization out of concern that a negotiated settlement may affect employees in its bargaining unit. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 108 | 12/13/16 |
| A451E | Berkeley Unified School District 1101.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Parties; Service (The Board may excuse defective service if the opposing parties have received actual notice of the filing and there is no showing of prejudice.) (The representative identified on a notice of appearance form is regarded as the party’s designated representative for purposes of service.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 31 | 08/16/17 |
| A432H | Trustees of the California State University 1101.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Parties; Service The Board denied a higher education employer’s request to refuse to consider an opposing party’s appeal for defective service where there was no evidence that the employer had been prejudiced by the failure to properly serve the appeal. Unlike PERB’s regulations and decisional law governing whether to excuse a late filing, no showing of “good cause” is required to excuse defective service; rather, the service requirement may be excused if opposing parties have actual notice of the issues and would not be unfairly surprised or unduly prejudiced. Because the employer was in receipt of opposing party’s appeal almost two weeks before the deadline for filing an opposition to the appeal, it had actual notice of the issues and was not prejudiced by the fact that the appeal was not served in complete conformity with PERB Regulation 32140, subdivision (a). more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 138 | 02/11/16 |
| 2475E | United Teachers of Los Angeles (Raines, et al) 1101.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Parties; Service 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 |
| 1977M | City of Long Beach 1101.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Parties; Service Board will excuse party’s failure to comply with PERB Regulation 32140 when the opposing party has received actual notice of the filing and defective service did not prejudice the opposing party. Charging party entitled to presumption of service because he provided PERB with a valid proof of service. Respondent failed to rebut the presumption of service and therefore charged with actual notice of charging party’s filings. Respondent not prejudiced by charging party’s failure to concurrently serve it with filings because Board allowed respondent full 20 days to file a response and response was filed. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 140 | 09/16/08 |
| 1806S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 1101.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Parties; Service A letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of mail. This presumption can be rebutted by evidence that the letter was not received. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 46 | 01/05/06 |
| 0662E | San Diego Community College District * * * REVERSED IN PART by San Diego Adult Educators v. PERB (1990) 223 Cal. App. 3d 1124 1101.05000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Parties; Service * * * REVERSED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by San Diego Adult Educators v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1124. * * *Although charge must be filed within six months of event, service may be made after six-month period where respondent not prejudiced. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19054 | 04/05/88 |