Decision 2738H – Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
LA-CE-1260-H
Decision Date: July 28, 2020
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charging Party excepted to a proposed decision dismissing claims that CSU San Marcos unilaterally changed procedures governing employee-requested salary increases.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal of the unfair practice charge, finding that the unilateral change allegations were untimely.
Perc Vol: 45
Perc Index: 26
Decision Headnotes
1101.01000 – In General
The six-month statute of limitations period begins to run when the charging party knows or should have known of the conduct underlying the charge. (p. 8.)
1101.01000 – In General
In unilateral change cases, the limitations period begins to run on the date charging party has actual or constructive notice of respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change, provided nothing subsequently evinces a wavering of that intent. (p. 8.) The union knew of the conduct underlying its unilateral change theory, viz., that the employer deviated from existing procedures, more than six months prior to filing the charge. (pp. 9-10.) The belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. (p. 12.)
1101.01000 – In General
The statute of limitations period does not restart when the respondent’s action during the limitations period merely confirms or reiterates the same position it took outside the limitations period. (p. 11.)
1101.01000 – In General
A charging party’s belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. To toll the statute of limitations based on lack of notice or discovery, the party must show that it did not previously have clear and unequivocal notice of the alleged misconduct. (p. 12.)
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
In unilateral change cases, the limitations period begins to run on the date charging party has actual or constructive notice of respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change, provided nothing subsequently evinces a wavering of that intent. (p. 8.) The union knew of the conduct underlying its unilateral change theory, viz., that the employer deviated from existing procedures, more than six months prior to filing the charge. (pp. 9-10.) The belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. (p. 12.)
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
The statute of limitations period does not restart when the respondent’s action during the limitations period merely confirms or reiterates the same position it took outside the limitations period. (p. 11.)
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
A charging party’s belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. To toll the statute of limitations based on lack of notice or discovery, the party must show that it did not previously have clear and unequivocal notice of the alleged misconduct. (p. 12.)
1101.04000 – Continuing Violation
The statute of limitations period does not restart when the respondent’s action during the limitations period merely confirms or reiterates the same position it took outside the limitations period. (p. 11.)
1101.06000 – Statutory and Equitable Tolling
No equitable tolling because the parties expressly exempted the employer’s decisions regarding the issue in dispute from contractual grievance procedures. The union’s efforts to informally dispute the employer’s decision thus could not have tolled the statute of limitations. (p. 11, fn. 9.)
1101.06000 – Statutory and Equitable Tolling
A charging party’s belated discovery of the legal significance of the underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. To toll the statute of limitations based on lack of notice or discovery, the party must show that it did not previously have clear and unequivocal notice of the alleged misconduct. (p. 12.)
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, the Board is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (p. 7.)
1107.02000 – Weight Given to ALJ’s Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions
When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, the Board is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (p. 7.)
1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, the Board is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (p. 7.)
1107.18000 – Review of Findings Not Excepted To
An ALJ’s factual findings, conclusions of law, and proposed remedies to which neither party excepts are not before the Board on appeal but remain binding on the parties. (p. 2, fn. 2 and 3.)