Decision 1461E – Sacramento City Unified School District
Decision Date: September 18, 2001
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board dismissed the unfair practice charge, which alleged that the employer violated the EERA by discriminating against the employee because of his exercise of protected rights.
Disposition: Dismissed. Charging party failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that portions of the charge were timely filed; also, the charging party failed to demonstrate any connection between the employer’s conduct and his filing of a grievance.
Perc Vol: 25
Perc Index: 32111
102.03000 – Enforcement of Settlement Agreements and Contracts 3541.5(b); 3514.5(b); 3563.2(b)
Charging party failed to present facts demonstrating an unfair practice under the EERA. Board otherwise has no authority to enforce the collective bargaining agreement; p. 9, warning letter.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
In order to demonstrate a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employees because of the exercise of those rights; p. 8, warning letter.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
EERA section 3541.5(a)(1) prohibits the Board from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; p. 7, warning letter. The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge. The charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed; p. 7, warning letter. The limitations period is tolled during the time it takes the charging party to exhaust any contractual grievance machinery through settlement or binding arbitration. The statute is tolled once a grievance is filed, but only to the conduct contained in the grievance. The statute begins to run again once the grievance process is completed; p. 7, warning letter.
1101.06000 – Statutory and Equitable Tolling
The limitations period is tolled during the time it takes the charging party to exhaust any contractual grievance machinery through settlement or binding arbitration. The statute is tolled once a grievance is filed, but only to the conduct contained in the grievance. The statute begins to run again once the grievance process is completed; p. 7, warning letter.
1102.01000 – Pre-Arbitration
A charge must be dismissed and deferred if: (1) the grievance machinery of the agreement covers the matter at issue and culminates in binding arbitration; and (2) the conduct complained of in the unfair practice charge is prohibited by the provisions of the agreement between the parties; p. 9, warning letter.
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires that an unfair practice charge include a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice." The charging party's burden includes alleging the "who, what, when, where and how" of an unfair practice. Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. From the information provided it was not possible to determine what section(s) of EERA was violated; p. 8, warning letter. PERB Regulation 32620(b)(5) requires the investigating Board agent to dismiss a charge where the allegations are properly deferred to binding arbitration; p. 9, warning letter.