Decision 1961S – State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
SA-CE-1663-S
Decision Date: June 17, 2008
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 101
Decision Headnotes
300.01000 – In General
Submitting a bid on work assignments pursuant to a post and bid procedure contained in an agreement between the State employer and the exclusive representative is not protected activity under the Dills Act.
300.17000 – Other
Submitting a bid on work assignments pursuant to a post and bid procedure contained in an agreement between the State employer and the exclusive representative is not protected activity under the Dills Act.
400.01000 – In General; Standards
To establish a prima facie case of interference, the charging party must allege facts establishing that the respondent’s conduct tends to or does result in harm to rights granted by the Dills Act. No interference because the Dills Act does not grant the claimed right to participate in a contractual post and bid procedure.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the charging party must allege facts establishing that the charging party engaged in activity protected by the Dills Act, the respondent had knowledge of that activity, and the respondent took adverse action against the charging party because of the protected activity. No discrimination because participating in a contractual post and bid procedure is not protected activity under the Dills Act.
1101.01000 – In General
Statute of limitations begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice. Charge was timely filed because it alleged no facts indicating that charging party knew, or should have known, before the date the State rejected his assignment bids that they would be rejected and charge filed within six months of rejection.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
Statute of limitations begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice. Charge was timely filed because it alleged no facts indicating that charging party knew, or should have known, before the date the State rejected his assignment bids that they would be rejected and charge filed within six months of rejection.