Decision 1281E – Peralta Community College District

SF-CE-1929

Decision Date: August 27, 1998

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 22
Perc Index: 29150

Decision Headnotes

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.01000 – In General

The six-month statute of limitations commences to run when the charging parties knew or should have known of the conduct giving rise to the alleged unfair practice. The charging party must file a charge when it has actual or constructive notice of a clear intent to implement the action which constitutes the basis for the unfair practice, provided that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent. The charging party may not wait until actual implementation occurs. Charge was timely filed, although it alleged that on a certain date the charging parties knew that they had been assigned to positions they considered undesirable, it was not until a later date within the stautory period that they learned that other employees allegedly received preferable assignments. Since it is this alleged disparate treatment which forms the basis of the charge, the relevant date is received preferable assignments. Since it is this alleged disparate treatment which forms the basis of the charge, the relevant date is

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.03000 – Remand for Further Hearing; Remand to General Counsel

Board finds that the unfair practice charge is timely filed and remands it to the Board agent for further processings to determine whether charging parties have stated a prima facie case of a violation.