Decision 1866H – Trustees of the California State University (Humboldt)
SA-CE-238-H
Decision Date: December 14, 2006
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charging party alleged that the university violated HEERA by “misclassifying” his position, “crossing collective bargaining unit lines”, threatening him, laying him off for raising concerns regarding labor policy, refusing to meet and confer with him after his layoff and replacing his position with personnel from a different bargaining unit.
Disposition: Dismissal upheld as the charging party failed to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice and failed to show good cause for new allegations. The charging party either lacked standing, filed allegations which were untimely or failed to provide sufficient information to support a prima facie case.
Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 26
Decision Headnotes
405.02000 – Express or Implied Threats
Allegation of threat of layoff untimely filed more than a year after the alleged threat and adverse action.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Charging party did not provide sufficient information that the University did not re-hire him due to protected conduct; he did not detail what positions he was denied as a result of his former employer’s alleged discriminatory motive.
503.07000 – Discharge; Layoffs; Constructive Discharge; Rejection During Probation
Charging party was aware of a reorganization four years prior to his layoff and was aware of a threat of layoff more than a year before his layoff; therefore his allegations that the reorganization led to his layoff and that he was threatened were both untimely filed.
602.01000 – In General
Charging party’s allegation that the University violated the contract in implementing layoff provisions, re-hire procedures and a layoff settlement agreement were reviewed as unilateral change violations. The charging party, as an individual employee, did not have standing to pursue these charges.
1100.03000 – Standing
Charging party, a former safety steward, did not have standing to file a charge on behalf of the union.
1101.01000 – In General
Charging party was aware of a reorganization four years prior to his layoff and was aware of a threat of layoff more than a year before his layoff; therefore his allegations that the reorganization led to his layoff and that he was threatened were both untimely filed.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
The six-month statute of limitations period began running when the charging party was aware of a reorganization which he alleges ultimately led to his layoff; his charge, filed four years later, was untimely filed. The six-month statute of limitations began running when the charging party was threatened by his supervisor and laid off; his charge, filed more than a year later, was untimely filed.