Decision 2176M – County of Riverside
Decision Date: March 29, 2011
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 35
Perc Index: 69
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
Charge untimely because employee organization learned more than six months before the charge was filed that the employer had refused to register it under the employer’s local rules. The continuing violation doctrine did not apply because the employer’s refusals to register the employee organization within the limitations period were merely reiterations of the same position. The statute of limitations was not equitably tolled while the employee organization pursued an action against the employer in superior court because that forum was not one agreed upon by the parties for resolution of disputes between them.
1101.04000 – Continuing Violation
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. There is no continuing violation when the employer’s conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice only by its relation to the original offense. No continuing violation when the employer’s refusals to register the employee organization under the employer’s local rules during the limitations period were merely reiterations of the position the employer took outside the limitations period.
1101.06000 – Statutory and Equitable Tolling
The statute of limitations is tolled during the period of time the parties are utilizing a non-binding dispute resolution procedure if: (1) the procedure is contained in a written agreement negotiated by the parties; (2) the procedure is being used to resolve the same dispute that is the subject of the unfair practice charge; (3) the charging party reasonably and in good faith pursues the procedure; and (4) tolling does not frustrate the purpose of the statutory limitation period by causing surprise or prejudice to the respondent. No equitable tolling while charging party pursued action against respondent in superior court because the court was not a mutually agreed forum for resolving disputes between the parties.