Decision 2279M – County of Santa Barbara

LA-CE-686-M

Decision Date: August 9, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

501.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case

Further factual detail in amended charge cured weaknesses of initial charge regarding alleged retaliatory change in job duties and increased scrutiny.

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

Allegations in amended charge are untimely. Relation back doctrine does not apply because new allegations cannot be viewed as merely clarifying the original allegations in this initial charge or adding a new legal theory based on facts originally alleged in the initial charge, but were added to charge. Equitable tolling does not apply to render allegations of amended charge timely, where charging party did not provide PERB with a copy of grievance procedures or other documentation demonstrating what occurred during grievance procedure. Allegations in original charge regarding changed job duties and increased security were incorporated into amended charge and should have been included in complaint relating to poor performance evaluation and denial of overtime opportunity.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.02000 – Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine

Limitations period for new allegations contained in first amended charge extends back six months from filing date. Allegations in amended charge are therefore untimely. Relation back doctrine does not apply because new allegations cannot be viewed as merely clarifying the original allegations in this initial charge or adding a new legal theory based on facts originally alleged in the initial charge, but were added to charge. Allegations in original charge regarding changed job duties and increased security were incorporated into amended charge and should have been included in complaint relating to poor performance evaluation and denial of overtime opportunity. Further factual detail in amended charge cured weaknesses of initial charge regarding alleged retaliatory change in job duties and increased scrutiny.

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

Equitable tolling does not apply to render allegations of amended charge timely, where charging party did not provide PERB with a copy of grievance procedures or other documentation demonstrating what occurred during grievance procedure. Without this evidence, it is difficult to determine whether grievances were processed utilizing a dispute resolution procedure contained in a written agreement negotiated by the parties. Charge contains no factual support for proposition that county’s disciplinary investigation was part of a negotiated grievance procedure, and disciplinary investigation by its nature cannot be categorized as involving the same dispute as an unfair practice charge alleging retaliation. Even giving charging party the benefit of the doubt regarding the applicability of the equitable tolling doctrine to specified allegations, they would still be untimely.