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.

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.)

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
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.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
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.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
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.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
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.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
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.)