At issue in this case was an agreement between the employer and the union to waive the 6 month filing requirement for the ULP, and continue to attempt to negotiate a resolution to the case.  When the parties reached impasse, the Union filed its ULP charge.  Even though the employer did not raise the timeliness of the charge as an issue, the Board dismissed the case as untimely (filed beyond the 6 month deadline).  NPH Attorney Kevin Buck, representing the NEPBA, appealed.

In a case of first impression, the Division of Labor Relations decided to change its practice with regard to the 6-month filing requirement for Prohibited Practice Charges.  While parties are required to file such charges within 6 months of when they knew or should have known of the prohibited practice, the Board reversed the decision dismissing the Union's charge as untimely. In doing so, the Board held that agreements such as these should be enforced to encourage good labor relations amongst the parties. 

For those who might find themselves in a similar situation, it is important to note that any agreement to waive timeliness on a ULP charge must be entered into knowingly and expressly.  In other words, follow the golden rule and be sure to get it in writing.  As always, counsel should be involved.

The full decision can be viewed by clicking on the link below:

Division_of_Labor_-_Statute_of_Limitations_Issue.pdf