All notes for Subtopic 1101.07000 – Waiver; Estoppel
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2847M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Kern County Hospital Authority 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel An employer’s announcement of a new policy as a fait accompli would not trigger a duty to demand bargaining and cannot support a waiver defense. Thus, waiver and timeliness normally apply in separate circumstances: announcing a fait accompli can trigger the statute of limitations for a unilateral change charge but cannot support a waiver by inaction defense, while proposing a new policy does not trigger the statute of limitations but can lead PERB to find waiver by inaction if the union does not respond to the proposal within a reasonable time. (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 20.) (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 12/20/22 | ||
| 1721E | San Francisco Unified School District and City and County of San Francisco 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel Union’s waiver of its rights in previous rounds of bargaining did not waive its rights for all eternity. The fact that the union did not assert its rights once, does not prevent it from asserting its rights in the future. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 33 | 12/13/04 |
| 2398H | Regents of the University of California 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel The employer’s acquiescence to the UC-AFT’s pursuit of the grievance through the arbitration procedure induced the UC-AFT to rely to its own detriment on the employer’s implicit representation that arbitration was the proper avenue for resolving the underlying dispute. The employer may not now claim that the UC-AFT’s utilization of the incorrect grievance resolution procedure deprives it of the protections of equitable tolling. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 64 | 11/17/14 |
| 2400H | Trustees of the California State University 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not cure timeliness issue. For the doctrine of equitable estoppel to apply, all of these elements must be alleged with factual specificity: (1) a representation or concealment of material facts; (2) made with the knowledge of the true facts; (3) to a party ignorant of the truth; (4) with the intention that the ignorant party acted on the representation or concealment; and (5) the party was in fact induced to act on the representation or concealment. As applied here, the allegations do not establish any of the elements necessary for an estoppel. The charge fails to allege any misrepresentatiion or concealment of material facts on the part of the employer to support charging party's claim that he was induced to delay the filing of an unfair practice charge in reliance thereon. Notwithstanding any of the alleged deceptive, false or misleading responses to charging party's inquiries charging party was not ignorant of the truth, and knew of the alleged wrongful act from which any claim based upon that act would lie. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 71 | 11/24/14 |
| 2299E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not cure timeliness issue. For the doctrine of equitable estoppel to apply, all of these elements must be alleged with factual specificity: (1) a representation or concealment of material facts; (2) made with the knowledge of the true facts; (3) to a party ignorant of the truth; (4) with the intention that the ignorant party acted on the representation or concealment; and (5) the party was in fact induced to act on the representation or concealment. As applied here, the allegations do not establish any of the elements necessary for an estoppel. The charge fails to allege any misrepresentation or concealment of material facts on the part of the employer to support charging party’s claim that she was induced to delay the filing of an unfair practice charge in reliance thereon. Notwithstanding any of the alleged deceptive, false or misleading responses to charging party’s inquiries charging party was not ignorant of the truth, and knew of the alleged wrongful act from which any claim based upon that act would lie. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 138 | 12/20/12 |
| 2262E | Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel Employer asserting a defense of waiver by inaction has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of evidence that it gave union notice and opportunity to bargain over the proposed change and the union failed to act. Where policy was adopted retroactively, request to bargain would have been futile, defense of waiver fails. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 176 | 05/08/12 |
| 2002E | Long Beach Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359, where the Board held that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and is not jurisdictional (equitable tolling is an allowable doctrine). * * *In PERB unfair practice proceedings, the statute of limitations is an element of the charging party’s prima facie case that the charging party bears the burden of proving at hearing. Therefore, a respondent’s failure to raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in its answer does not waive the issue of timeliness. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 36 | 01/30/09 |
| 1564E | Long Beach Community College District 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel Board held that statute of limitation under EERA is not jurisdictional; overruling California State University, San Diego (1989) PERB Decision No. 718-H. Instead the statute of limitation must be raised as an affirmative defense or it is waived. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 27 | 12/08/03 |
| 1374S | State of California (Department of Youth Authority) 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel Employer's letter requesting union to change designation of facilities to institutions for purpose of steward representation did not put union on notice that employer was going to unilaterally change the designations. Failure to file charge within 6 months of letter is not a waiver. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31059 | 02/28/00 |
| 0907H | Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers) 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel Employees who appear at a grievance meeting as grievants are not considered agents of the union for purposes of notice absent evidence that they were grievance representatives of the union. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22166 | 10/01/91 |
| 0754E | Calexico Unified School District 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel Statute of limitations under EERA, Dills Act, and HEERA is jurisdictional and cannot be waived; p. 7. Statute of limitations is jurisdictional and cannot be waived; even, if waivable, raising of such defense as events become an issue is not a waiver of that defense; pp. 6-7. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20159 | 07/17/89 |
| 0718H | California State University, San Diego * * * OVERRULED by Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564, and Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564, where the Board held that the six-month statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and thus may be equitably tolled, and by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359, where the Board held that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that may be waived. * * *Board held that HEERA section 3563.2(a) constitutes a jurisdictional bar to charges filed outside its prescribed six month time period. Board disapproves of any application of PERB Regulation 32644 making the untimeliness of unfair practice charge an affirmative defense subject to a party's waiver. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20037 | 01/17/89 |
| 0208E | Fresno Unified School District 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel Hearing officer's refusal to consider the District's statute of limitations defense was unnecesarily harsh since the same defense can be raised in a demurrer and PERB rules do not provide a procedure for filing demurrers; p. 22. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13110 | 04/30/82 |
| 0194E | San Dieguito Union High School District 1101.07000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Waiver; Estoppel District is not estopped from asserting statute of limitations defense before PERB simply because it represented to the Superior Court in a related action that the matter should have been filed before PERB; p. 15. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13062 | 02/25/82 |