Decision 1559S – State of California (Department of Corrections)
SA-CE-1384-S
Decision Date: November 21, 2003
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Vickers alleged various violations of the MOU and local agreement between CCPOA and the State involving his work unit. Vickers also requested information from Corrections in July 2002.
Disposition: The Board found that four allegations regarding changed conditions were untimely. With regard to the information request, if Vickers was requesting information about known old grievances, the request is untimely. If Vickers claims the refusal to provide the request is the violation, then it is timely. However, in this case, the Board found he did not state a prima facie case because the State’s duty to provide information is owed to the exclusive representative, not to individual employees.
Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 15
Decision Headnotes
1100.03000 – Standing
Employee does not have standing to file a request for information case because duty to provide information extenst to the exclusive representative and not to an individual employee.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
Charge is untimely where charging party filed a grievance and received a response in December 2000. Union refuseed to arbitrate in February 2001 and charge is filed in December 2002.
1101.04000 – Continuing Violation
PERB has recognized that for a continuing violation, new conduct independent of the original conduct must occur during the limitations period. An employee cannot show a continuing violation unless the nature of the responding party's conduct has changed. An employee's request for information regarding a grievance does not constitute a continuing violation.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Good cause is not demonstrated by a charging party who fails to file an amended charge and fails to request an extension and then asks that the appeal compromise his amended charge.