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.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 29

Decision Headnotes

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

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.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.04000 – Continuing Violation

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.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.17000 – Advisory Opinions

The Board does not render advisory opinions or provide declaratory relief.