Decision 1868M – County of Orange * * * OVERRULED by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M
LA-CE-101-M
Decision Date: December 15, 2006
Decision Type: PERB Decision
* * * OVERRULED by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M * * *
Description: The Board affirmed the dismissal of an untimely unfair practice charge in which SEIU alleged the County’s signature require for decertification petitions was unreasonable.
Disposition: The Board held that the matter was untimely. In order to invoke the continuing violation doctrine, the offending party must commit a new wrongful act and that act must be timely challenged by the charging party. Thus, the mere existence of an allegedly unreasonable signature requirement, standing alone, is insufficient to invoke the doctrine in this case. Because there was no case in controversy before the Board, SEIU essentially sought a declaratory judgment. However, the Board does not render advisory opinions or provide declaratory relief.
Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 29
Decision Headnotes
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
* * * OVERRULED by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M, where the Board held that the continuing violation doctrine and new wrongful act doctrine are separate statute of limitations exceptions and must be analyzed separately. As long as the employer policy or local rule continues in effect, charging party can bring claim that it interferes with or discriminates against protected rights or constitutes an unreasonable local rule, irrespective of when employer promulgated it. * * *
The Board has long recognized the continuing violation doctrine. However, a continuing violation will not be found where the employer’s conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice only by its relation to the original offense. In other words, a continuing violation will only be found when the wrongdoer engages in active conduct (i.e., new wrongful act) within the limitations periods that independently constitutes an unfair practice. Thus, in order to invoke the continuing violation doctrine, the offending party must commit a new wrongful act, and this act must be timely challenged by the charging party.
1101.04000 – Continuing Violation
* * * OVERRULED by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M, where the Board held that the continuing violation doctrine and new wrongful act doctrine are separate statute of limitations exceptions and must be analyzed separately. As long as the employer policy or local rule continues in effect, charging party can bring claim that it interferes with or discriminates against protected rights or constitutes an unreasonable local rule, irrespective of when employer promulgated it. * * *
The Board has long recognized the continuing violation doctrine. However, a continuing violation will not be found where the employer’s conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice only by its relation to the original offense. In other words, a continuing violation will only be found when the wrongdoer engages in active conduct (i.e., new wrongful act) within the limitations periods that independently constitutes an unfair practice. Thus, in order to invoke the continuing violation doctrine, the offending party must commit a new wrongful act, and this act must be timely challenged by the charging party.
1107.17000 – Advisory Opinions
* * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2721-M. * * *
The Board does not render advisory opinions or provide declaratory relief.