Decision 1182H – Regents of University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)

Past practice is measured against the "dynamic status quo," which may include change as a normal part of the pattern of conduct between the employer and union; past practice here is the pattern of shift schedules over the years; p. 23, proposed dec.

Change in work shifts is a negotiable change in hours; p. 21, proposed dec.

The charging party must establish timeliness as part of its prima facie case; p. 4.

The six-month statute of limitations is jurisdictional. The parties cannot waive it and need not affirmatively plead the defense; p. 4, p. 16, proposed dec. The charging party must establish timeliness as part of its prima facie case; p. 4.

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.