Decision 1337S – State of California (Water Resources Control Board)

SA-CE-1083-S

Decision Date: July 16, 1999

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 23
Perc Index: 30136

Decision Headnotes

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

The limitations period begins to run on the date the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent's clear intent to engage in the prohibited conduct. Charging Party heard rumors of a new policy and immediately began investigations outside the 6 month period. However the earliest date on the record that Charging Party had actually seen the new policy was within the statutory period.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period

The limitations period begins to run on the date the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent's clear intent to engage in the prohibited conduct. Charging Party heard rumors of a new policy and immediately began investigations outside the 6 month period. However the earliest date on the record that Charging Party had actually seen the new policy was within the statutory period.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.03000 – Contract Repudiation or Breach

In the instant case the State's internet/intranet policy expanded the definitions of "incompatible uses of state facilities" and "misuse of state property." As a result, the State's internet/intranet usage policy constituted a negotiable departure from its existing statement of incompatible activities.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02163 – Work Rules

Incompatible activities policy is a negotiable subject.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02164 – Other

Incompatible activities policy is a negotiable subject.