Decision 2299E – Los Angeles Unified School District

PERB has no jurisdiction over employee’s wage dispute with employer.

Failure of Board agent to inform charging party that respondent was entitled to file response to amended charge does not affect outcome of dismissal of charge. Extension of time granted to respond to amended charge did not violate PERB Regulation 32132(b), where there was no basis to conclude that Board agent did not find good cause for extension. Amended charge that attempted to cure the fatal subject matter jurisdictional defect by re-characterizing what is essentially a wage claim into a claim that the wage dispute arose in retaliation for EERA-protected activities does not state prima facie violation of EERA.

Failure of Board agent to inform charging party that respondent was entitled to file response to amended charge does not affect outcome of dismissal of charge. Extension of time granted to respond to amended charge did not violate PERB Regulation 32132(b), where there was no basis to conclude that Board agent did not find good cause for extension. Amended charge that attempted to cure the fatal subject matter jurisdictional defect by re-characterizing what is essentially a wage claim into a claim that the wage dispute arose in retaliation for EERA-protected activities does not state prima facie violation of EERA.

Failure of Board agent to inform charging party that respondent was entitled to file response to amended charge does not affect outcome of dismissal of charge. Extension of time granted to respond to amended charge did not violate PERB Regulation 32132(b), where there was no basis to conclude that Board agent did not find good cause for extension.

The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not cure timeliness issue. For the doctrine of equitable estoppel to apply, all of these elements must be alleged with factual specificity: (1) a representation or concealment of material facts; (2) made with the knowledge of the true facts; (3) to a party ignorant of the truth; (4) with the intention that the ignorant party acted on the representation or concealment; and (5) the party was in fact induced to act on the representation or concealment. As applied here, the allegations do not establish any of the elements necessary for an estoppel. The charge fails to allege any misrepresentation or concealment of material facts on the part of the employer to support charging party’s claim that she was induced to delay the filing of an unfair practice charge in reliance thereon. Notwithstanding any of the alleged deceptive, false or misleading responses to charging party’s inquiries charging party was not ignorant of the truth, and knew of the alleged wrongful act from which any claim based upon that act would lie.