Decision 1066S – State of California (Consumer Affairs)

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.

A timely violation would not be found where the employer's conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice based on a necessary relation to the original offense. In cases where there is a relation back to previous conduct, some new conduct which is sufficiently independent of the original offense is required that will revive the viability of the unfair practice; p. 5, warning letter. In the context of 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 employer's continued reliance on a "reprisal" file is not sufficiently independent of the original offense to constitute a separate violation; p. 5, warning letter. Although the employer continually updates the "reprisal" file with new separate violation; p. 5, warning letter. Although the employer continually updates the "reprisal" file with new independently offending conduct; 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 or independent violation within the six-month period; p. 6, warning letter.

A timely violation would not be found where the employer's conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice based on a necessary relation to the original offense. In cases where there is a relation back to previous conduct, some new conduct which is sufficiently independent of the original offense is required that will revive the viability of the unfair practice; p. 5, warning letter.