Decision 0876E – Glendora Unified School District

Board agent is free to examine the contract and, by reference to its terms only, determine its meaning; p. 9.

Without factual allegations identifying evidence to support a particular interpretation, the Board agent is not required to accept the charging party's conclusory allegations regarding the interpretation of the contract. Rather, the Board agent is free to examine the contract and, by reference to its terms only, determine its meaning; pp. 8-9. Where contract language is clear and unambiguous on its face it is unnecessary to go beyond the language of the contract itself to ascertain its meaning. Thus, Board agent did not exceed his authority nor decide the ultimate issue when he rejected the Association's unsupported and conclusory allegations concerning the interpretation of the contract; p. 10. A hearing is warranted where the facts of the charge establish a legitimate dispute over the meaning of the contract; fn. 4. A hearing is warranted where the facts of the charge establish a legitimate dispute over the meaning of the contract; fn. 4.

Association fails to establish as one of its prima facie elements of a unilateral change, that District's decision to grant a temporary release for one employee constituted a change in policy. While an employer's established policy may be embodied in the terms of the collective bargaining agreement itself, where the contract is silent or ambiguous as to such a policy, that policy must be ascertained by examining past practice or bargaining history; pp. 10-11. The clear and unambiguous language of the contract establishes that it is the policy of the District to grant temporary absences for non-teaching employees provided the employee obtain prior approval from the site administrator. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go beyond that language to ascertain a contrary interpretation in the absence of supporting factual allegations by the Association; p. 11. absence of supporting factual allegations by the Association; p. 11.

Without factual allegations identifying evidence to support a particular interpretation, the Board agent is not required to accept the charging party's conclusory allegations regarding the interpretation of the contract. Rather, the Board agent is free to examine the contract and, by reference to its terms only, determine its meaning; pp. 8-9. Where contract language is clear and unambiguous on its face it is unnecessary to go beyond the language of the contract itself to ascertain its meaning. Thus, Board agent did not exceed his authority nor decide the ultimate issue when he rejected the Association's unsupported and conclusory allegation concerning the interpretation of the contract; p. 10.

To state a prima facie case of a unilateral change the charging party must allege facts sufficient to establish: (1) the employer breached or altered the parties' written agreement or own established past practice; (2) such action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the change is not merely an isolated breach of the contract, but amounts to a change of policy (i.e., has a generalized effect or continuing impact upon bargaining unit members' terms and conditions of employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation; p. 8. A unilateral change in established policy, whether embodied in the contract or evident from the parties' past practice, cannot be established unless the allegations identify facts evidencing a conscious or apparent reversal of a previous understanding; p. 11. established unless the allegations identify facts evidencing a conscious or apparent reversal of a previous understanding; p. 11.