Decision 2151H – Trustees of the California State University
LA-CE-1007-H
Decision Date: December 14, 2010
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charging party alleged that the University made a misrepresentation of fact to a factfinding panel, and failed to provide requested information.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the Board agent’s dismissal finding that the information request allegation was not timely filed, and that the single allegation of misrepresentation is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of bad faith bargaining.
Perc Vol: 35
Perc Index: 14
Decision Headnotes
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
A party to a fact finding hearing does not violate EERA by failing to present all information that the other party wishes it would, or putting its own spin on the data. Charging party fails to present facts that establish the employer engaged in misrepresentation. Moreover, even if the allegation of misrepresentation is taken as true, a single indicia of bad faith is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case for bad faith bargaining under the totality of circumstances test.
604.01000 – In General
Where charging party was aware that the employer held back information at least 18 months prior to filing amended charge, the allegation of failure to provide requested information was untimely. PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to “any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.” The limitations period for new allegations in an amended charge is based on the filing date of the amended charge.
606.01000 – In General
A party to a fact finding hearing does not violate EERA by failing to present all information that the other party wishes it would, or putting its own spin on the data. Charging party fails to present facts that establish the employer engaged in misrepresentation. Moreover, even if the allegation of misrepresentation is taken as true, a single indicia of bad faith is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case for bad faith bargaining under the totality of circumstances test.
606.17000 – Failure to Provide Information
Where charging party was aware that the employer held back information at least 18 months prior to filing amended charge, the allegation of failure to provide requested information was untimely. PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to “any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.” The limitations period for new allegations in an amended charge is based on the filing date of the amended charge.
606.19000 – Concealment/Misrepresentation
A party to a fact finding hearing does not violate EERA by failing to present all information that the other party wishes it would, or putting its own spin on the data. Charging party fails to present facts that establish the employer engaged in misrepresentation. Moreover, even if the allegation of misrepresentation is taken as true, a single indicia of bad faith is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case for bad faith bargaining under the totality of circumstances test.
1101.01000 – In General
Where charging party was aware that the employer held back information at least 18 months prior to filing amended charge, the allegation of failure to provide requested information was untimely. PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to “any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.” The limitations period for new allegations in an amended charge is based on the filing date of the amended charge.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
Where charging party was aware that the employer held back information at least 18 months prior to filing amended charge, the allegation of failure to provide requested information was untimely. PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to “any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.” The limitations period for new allegations in an amended charge is based on the filing date of the amended charge.