Opinion ID: 2057049
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: timeliness of petition

Text: Section 48-825(1) provides that a petition must be filed within 180 days after the alleged violation. The District claims that the petition was time barred because it was not filed within 180 days after the alleged violation. The District relies upon Regina Davis, et. al. v. FOP Lodge 8, 15 C.I.R. 1, 15 (2004), in which the CIR noted that the limitation period for a duty of fair representation claim begins to run when the cause of action accrues. The District argues that the limitations period began to run when Manning was offered the position as a long-term substitute. The District claims that Manning was on notice she would not be covered by the contract when she received a letter from the student services director on June 29, 2007. The letter stated that as a long-term substitute, Manning was not contractually bound to the District. The District asserts that if a prohibited practice occurred, it took place on June 29 when Manning received the letter. The CIR concluded that the cause of action first arose when the District implemented the deviation from the salary schedule and not when Manning was offered the position. The CIR determined that the prohibited practice occurred on September 21, 2007, when Manning's pay was changed. The petition asserted that the alleged prohibited practice was the unilateral deviation from the salary schedule, which first occurred on September 21, 2007. The petition was filed on January 16, 2008. The CIR found that the petition was timely filed. The District's reliance on Regina Davis, et. al., supra, is misplaced. That case involved a duty of fair representation claim, and in such cases, the limitations period begins to run when the employee knew or should have known of the violation. See, e.g., Howard v. Lockheed-Georgia Co., 742 F.2d 612 (11th Cir.1984); Sixel v. Transportation Communications, 708 F.Supp. 240 (D.Minn.1989). In cases involving the unilateral modification of economic terms of employment, federal courts have uniformly held that the limitations period for claims alleging an unfair labor practice does not begin to run until the date the union received actual and unequivocal notice of the employer's unilateral modification. See, N.L.R.B. v. Walker Const. Co., 928 F.2d 695 (5th Cir. 1991); N.L.R.B. v. Glover Bottled Gas Corp., 905 F.2d 681 (2d Cir.1990); Esmark, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 887 F.2d 739 (7th Cir.1989); Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. N.L.R.B., 825 F.2d 608 (1st Cir.1987). Since the cause involves a claim alleging a prohibited labor practice, the question is when the Association had notice of the District's unilateral modification of the terms and conditions of Manning's employment. The burden of proof was on the District to demonstrate when the Association had notice of the alleged prohibited practice. See Broekemeier Ford v. Clatanoff, 240 Neb. 265, 481 N.W.2d 416 (1992). The District failed to prove that the Association was aware of the alleged prohibited practice prior to the filing of a grievance on December 10, 2007. The 180-day statute of limitations began on December 10, and the filing of the petition on January 16, 2008, was timely. The limitations period began on the date the Association knew or should have known of the alleged prohibited practice. The CIR used September 21, 2007, as the beginning of the limitations period, finding that the change in terms of Manning's contract did not occur until she was paid on that date. Even if September 21 is used as the starting date for the limitations period, the petition was timely because September 21 is within the 180-day time period preceding the filing of the petition. The petition was timely filed, and this assignment of error has no merit.