Decision 1933H – California Faculty Association (Chapman and Druzgalski)

Charging Parties did not allege facts that the Association’s decision declining to arbitrate a grievance demonstrated bad faith, discrimination or arbitrary conduct.

To state a prima facie case of interference under HEERA, a charging party must establish that the respondent's conduct tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted under HEERA. A violation may only be found if HEERA provides the claimed rights. HEERA section 3565 grants employees the right to participate in the activities of their employee organization or to refuse to join the employee organization or participate in its activities. HEERA section 3562(f)(2) expressly excludes the Academic Senate from the definition of employee organization. Thus, rights involving faculty participation in the Academic Senate are not covered by HEERA. Charging Parties have not demonstrated that the Association interfered with their protected rights under HEERA when the Association informed the Academic Senate that it continued to negotiate with the University over implementation of SB 1212.

Charging Parties have not demonstrated that the Association interfered with their protected rights under HEERA when the Association informed the Academic Senate that it continued to negotiate with the University over implementation of SB 1212.

A charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. An unfair practice allegation may still be considered to be timely filed if the alleged violation is a continuing one. To establish a continuing violation, a charging party must demonstrate that the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the statutory limitations period. 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. The statute of limitations runs from the discovery of the conduct constituting the unfair practice, not from the discovery of the legal significance of the alleged unlawful conduct. The fact that Charging Parties received a bargaining update from the Association within the statutory limitations period does not make this allegation timely filed. Because the unfair practice charge was filed nearly three years after the MOU was effective, the Board found the Charging Parties’ allegation was not timely filed.

To establish a continuing violation, a charging party must demonstrate that the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the statutory limitations period. The statute of limitations runs from the discovery of the conduct constituting the unfair practice, not from the discovery of the legal significance of the alleged unlawful conduct. The fact that Charging Parties received a bargaining update from the Association within the statutory limitations period does not make this allegation timely filed. Because the unfair practice charge was filed nearly three years after the MOU was effective, the Board found the Charging Parties’ allegation was not timely filed.

An unfair practice allegation may still be considered to be timely filed if the alleged violation is a continuing one. To establish a continuing violation, a charging party must demonstrate that the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the statutory limitations period. 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.

A charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. The statute of limitations runs from the discovery of the conduct constituting the unfair practice, not from the discovery of the legal significance of the alleged unlawful conduct. Because the unfair practice charge was filed nearly three years after the MOU was effective, the Board found the Charging Parties’ allegation was not timely filed.