Decision 1531M – City of Folsom
SA-CE-33-M
Decision Date: June 20, 2003
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Siroky alleged that the City failed to sign a settlement based upon a proposed arbitration award that awarded Siroky $5000 for working out of class. He claims that the City’s refusal to sign is due to his union activity.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge because it was not timely filed. Siroky knew as early as September 1998 of the City’s refusal to sign the agreement. His charge was filed on January 25, 2002, well beyond the three year limitations period.
Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 89
Decision Headnotes
1100.03000 – Standing
A violation of MMBA section 3505 by the City for refusing a request by the union representative to schedule a meeting to resolve the dispute and refusing a request by the union representative to submit the dispute to an arbitrator is only actionable by the union.
1101.01000 – In General
Because the employee resigned (per the agreement) knowing that the City had not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement, the employee was aware on the date of resignation of the alleged infraction as of that date and the limitations period started to run. Subsequent failures by the City to honor the employee’s multiple requests to cure its violation do not restart the limitations period.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
Because the employee resigned (per the agreement) knowing that the City had not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement, the employee was aware on the date of resignation of the alleged infraction as of that date and the limitations period started to run. Subsequent failures by the City to honor the employee’s multiple requests to cure its violation do not restart the limitations period.
1101.04000 – Continuing Violation
Because the employee resigned (per the agreement) knowing that the City had not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement, the employee was aware on the date of resignation of the alleged infraction as of that date and the limitations period started to run. Subsequent failures by the City to honor the employee’s multiple requests to cure its violation do not restart the limitations period.