Decision 1377E – Los Angeles Community College District

LA-CE-4069

Decision Date: February 28, 2000

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 24
Perc Index: 31062

Decision Headnotes

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

Where amended charge does not address an allegation found insufficient in the warning letter, the allegation is dismissed. In Temple City Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 843, the Board stated that a Regional Attorney may not resolve disputes of material facts between a Charging Party and a Respondent. However, the factual dispute presented here is not the type of factual dispute discussed in Temple City. Here Charging Party provided documents that demonstrate his allegations were false. This type of dispute may be resolved by a Board Agent in the investigation of a charge.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge

Where amended charge does not address an allegation found insufficient in the warning letter, the allegation is dismissed. In Temple City Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 843, the Board stated that a Regional Attorney may not resolve disputes of material facts between a Charging Party and a Respondent. However, the factual dispute presented here is not the type of factual dispute discussed in Temple City. Here Charging Party provided documents that demonstrate his allegations were false. This type of dispute may be resolved by a Board Agent in the investigation of a charge.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal

Where amended charge does not address an allegation found insufficient in the warning letter, the allegation is dismissed.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

Where amended charge does not address an allegation found insufficient in the warning letter, the allegation is dismissed. In Temple City Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 843, the Board stated that a Regional Attorney may not resolve disputes of material facts between a Charging Party and a Respondent. However, the factual dispute presented here is not the type of factual dispute discussed in Temple City. Here Charging Party provided documents that demonstrate his allegations were false. This type of dispute may be resolved by a Board Agent in the investigation of a charge.

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

Government Code section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits the Board from issuing a complaint in respect of any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. From 1980 through 1984, Charging Party had a work overload for which he was not compensated. Additionally, in 1983 and 1984, Charging Party complained about release time he was not receiving. The instant charge regarding these matters was filed in May, 1999. As such, the charge was untimely and was dismissed.