Decision 2273E – Standard School District

LA-CE-5586-E

Decision Date: June 22, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.01000 – In General

Under the Gavilan “knew or should have known” standard, the statute of limitations for a charge alleging a violation of the public notice provisions of EERA begins to run either upon publication of a public notice or a meeting at which bargaining proposals will be sunshined or at the public meeting itself. Thus, if the charge alleges that the notice itself was defective, the statute of limitations begins to run upon publication of the notice. If the charge alleges that the notice itself was proper but the proposals sunshined at the meeting failed to comply with the provisions of EERA section 3547, the limitations period begins to run on the date of the meeting where the proposals were presented to the public.

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

Under the Gavilan “knew or should have known” standard, the statute of limitations for a charge alleging a violation of the public notice provisions of EERA begins to run either upon publication of a public notice or a meeting at which bargaining proposals will be sunshined or at the public meeting itself. Thus, if the charge alleges that the notice itself was defective, the statute of limitations begins to run upon publication of the notice. If the charge alleges that the notice itself was proper but the proposals sunshined at the meeting failed to comply with the provisions of EERA section 3547, the limitations period begins to run on the date of the meeting where the proposals were presented to the public.

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

For the continuing violation doctrine to apply, the conduct alleged during the limitations period must be of the same type as that alleged outside the limitations period and must stand on its own as an unfair practice. Doctrine inapplicable to alleged refusal to negotiate over proposals sunshined at public meeting, where allegations did not state an independent unfair practice and conduct in seeking to negotiate is not of the same type as alleged violation of public notice requirements of EERA section 3547. Alleged adoption of initial proposals at public meeting did not revive earlier allegation that notice provided previously failed to comply with requirements of section 3547.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.06000 – Statutory and Equitable Tolling

Charge fails to allege facts showing misrepresentation and concealment by school district of material facts relevant to the provision of public notice of its initial proposals so as to extend the statute of limitations through equitable tolling.

1502.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; PUBLIC NOTICE
1502.01000 – In General

Under the Gavilan “knew or should have known” standard, the statute of limitations for a charge alleging a violation of the public notice provisions of EERA begins to run either upon publication of a public notice or a meeting at which bargaining proposals will be sunshined or at the public meeting itself. Thus, if the charge alleges that the notice itself was defective, the statute of limitations begins to run upon publication of the notice. If the charge alleges that the notice itself was proper but the proposals sunshined at the meeting failed to comply with the provisions of EERA section 3547, the limitations period begins to run on the date of the meeting where the proposals were presented to the public. For the continuing violation doctrine to apply, the conduct alleged during the limitations period must be of the same type as that alleged outside the limitations period and must stand on its own as an unfair practice. Doctrine inapplicable to alleged refusal to negotiate over proposals sunshined at public meeting, where allegations did not state an independent unfair practice and conduct in seeking to negotiate is not of the same type as alleged violation of public notice requirements of EERA section 3547. Alleged adoption of initial proposals at public meeting did not revive earlier allegation that notice provided previously failed to comply with requirements of section 3547.

1502.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; PUBLIC NOTICE
1502.05000 – Public Input

Under the Gavilan “knew or should have known” standard, the statute of limitations for a charge alleging a violation of the public notice provisions of EERA begins to run either upon publication of a public notice or a meeting at which bargaining proposals will be sunshined or at the public meeting itself. Thus, if the charge alleges that the notice itself was defective, the statute of limitations begins to run upon publication of the notice. If the charge alleges that the notice itself was proper but the proposals sunshined at the meeting failed to comply with the provisions of EERA section 3547, the limitations period begins to run on the date of the meeting where the proposals were presented to the public.

1502.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; PUBLIC NOTICE
1502.09000 – Complaint/Timeliness/Standing/Service

Under the Gavilan “knew or should have known” standard, the statute of limitations for a charge alleging a violation of the public notice provisions of EERA begins to run either upon publication of a public notice or a meeting at which bargaining proposals will be sunshined or at the public meeting itself. Thus, if the charge alleges that the notice itself was defective, the statute of limitations begins to run upon publication of the notice. If the charge alleges that the notice itself was proper but the proposals sunshined at the meeting failed to comply with the provisions of EERA section 3547, the limitations period begins to run on the date of the meeting where the proposals were presented to the public. For the continuing violation doctrine to apply, the conduct alleged during the limitations period must be of the same type as that alleged outside the limitations period and must stand on its own as an unfair practice. Doctrine inapplicable to alleged refusal to negotiate over proposals sunshined at public meeting, where allegations did not state an independent unfair practice and conduct in seeking to negotiate is not of the same type as alleged violation of public notice requirements of EERA section 3547. Alleged adoption of initial proposals at public meeting did not revive earlier allegation that notice provided previously failed to comply with requirements of section 3547.