Decision 1736S – California State Employees Association (Chen)

LA-CO-111-S

Decision Date: January 19, 2005

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 56

Decision Headnotes

800.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
800.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case

In a duty of fair representation case, the statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. Chen should have known well before February 10, 6 months before the charge was filed, that CSEA was not pursuing her grievance. CSEA drafted the grievance on December 9. CSEA failed to respond to her December 12 letter inquiry and telephone messages the week of January 12. Therefore, the charge was untimely filed.

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

In a duty of fair representation case, the statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. The charge was filed August 10, 2004. Chen should have known well before February 10, 6 months before the charge was filed, that CSEA was not pursuing her grievance. CSEA drafted the grievance on December 9. CSEA failed to respond to her December 12 letter inquiry and telephone messages the week of January 12. Therefore, the charge was untimely filed.

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

In a duty of fair representation case, the statute of limitations begins to run when the charging party knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. The charge was filed August 10, 2004. Chen should have known well before February 10, 6 months before the charge was filed, that CSEA was not pursuing her grievance. CSEA drafted the grievance on December 9. CSEA failed to respond to her December 12 letter inquiry and telephone messages the week of January 12. Therefore, the charge was untimely filed.