Decision 1866H – Trustees of the California State University (Humboldt)

SA-CE-238-H

Decision Date: December 14, 2006

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 26

Decision Headnotes

405.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; THREATS OR PROMISES
405.02000 – Express or Implied Threats

Allegation of threat of layoff untimely filed more than a year after the alleged threat and adverse action.

501.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION
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.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
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.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.03000 – Standing

Charging party, a former safety steward, did not have standing to file a charge on behalf of the union.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.