Decision 2579M – County of Monterey
SF-CE-1336-M
Decision Date: July 20, 2018
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed an unfair practice charge filed by Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Local 521), which alleged that the County of Monterey violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) and PERB Regulations by unilaterally adopting and then revising an attendance policy affecting Local 521-represented employees in the County’s Emergency Communications Department. On appeal, Local 521 contended that its charge contained sufficient factual allegations of a newly adopted policy to state a prima facie case of unilateral change. Specifically, the amended charge alleged that the original and revised attendance policies “significantly altered existing practices with regard to attendance” by implementing “new rules on attendance, tardiness, and procedures for taking leave,” as well as “new bases for discipline.” Accepting these allegations as true, the Board agreed that the charge alleged a prima facie case and reversed the dismissal.
Disposition: The Board reversed the OGC’s dismissal and remanded the case for issuance of a complaint.
Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 33
Decision Headnotes
602.01000 – In General
Absent a clear and unmistakable waiver of the union’s right to bargain, an employer may not unilaterally add new terms to an existing collective bargaining agreement or adopt or enforce new rules of conduct where previously none had existed. This prohibition extends to the enforcement of existing rules. An employer’s more stringent enforcement of an existing policy constitutes a different term or condition of employment for which notice and opportunity to bargain is necessary. (Venture Packaging (1989) 294 NLRB 544, 550; Fry Foods, Inc., supra, 241 NLRB 76, 93; Master Slack (1977) 230 NLRB 1054, 1055-1056.)
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
When a charge alleges the existence of a past practice, the charging party must specifically identify and describe the practice allegedly altered by a unilateral change. However, when, as here, the charging party alleges the employer has established a new policy where none previously existed, “[t]here is no way to more specifically allege the non-existence of something than to state it did not exist.”
602.01000 – In General
Absent a clear and unmistakable waiver of the union’s right to bargain, an employer may not unilaterally add new terms to an existing collective bargaining agreement or adopt or enforce new rules of conduct where previously none had existed. This prohibition extends to the enforcement of existing rules. An employer’s more stringent enforcement of an existing policy constitutes a different term or condition of employment for which notice and opportunity to bargain is necessary. (Venture Packaging (1989) 294 NLRB 544, 550; Fry Foods, Inc., supra, 241 NLRB 76, 93; Master Slack (1977) 230 NLRB 1054, 1055-1056.)
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
When a charge alleges the existence of a past practice, the charging party must specifically identify and describe the practice allegedly altered by a unilateral change. However, when, as here, the charging party alleges the employer has established a new policy where none previously existed, “[t]here is no way to more specifically allege the non-existence of something than to state it did not exist.”