All notes for Subtopic 601.04000 – When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2881E | West Contra Costa Unified School District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand After District contravened earlier promises regarding scheduling of English as Second Language teachers, it was too late for good faith negotiations over the scheduling process to occur, as demand to bargain would be futile. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 9, fn. 6; County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, p. 24 [“In the face of unilateral implementation, a demand to bargain is futile,” because at that point there is no “level playing field” for fair negotiations to occur].) (p. 7, fn. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 79 | 11/06/23 |
| 2861M | Imperial Irrigation District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand The District notes that IBEW failed to request bargaining after it sent IBEW notice on May 14 that it would be removing the Sequestration Policy restriction on usage of the 40 hours of post-sequestration vacation time, thereby allowing employees to bank unused time. While there is no complaint allegation relevant to that change, and we find no violation, the District’s argument does not help it with respect to the complaint’s actual allegations. The District’s letter did not refer to the parties’ negotiations or indicate that the District was ready to resume those negotiations. We find no reason to consider this letter an invitation to resume bargaining, nor did it put the onus on the union to create another offer in response to the District’s fait accompli. (p. 63, fn. 35.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 163 | 05/08/23 |
| 2852H | Regents of the University of California 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Announcing a new policy as a fait accompli does not trigger a duty to demand bargaining and cannot support a waiver defense. (p. 18, fn. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 121 | 02/09/23 |
| 2758M | County of Ventura 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand A valid demand to bargain does not require a formulaic phrase, but may take any form that conveys the exclusive representative’s desire to meet and confer or negotiate about a matter within the scope of representation. (p. 47, fn. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 87 | 03/23/21 |
| 2758M | County of Ventura 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand The County’s September 2017 letter did not give the Association sufficiently clear notice of the County’s decision to begin withholding taxes based on constructive receipt income such that the Association was obligated to demand effects bargaining. The Association needed more information before it could make a viable demand to bargain the effects of the decision, including: when the County planned to implement the tax withholding; which unit members would be subject to withholding; how the County would calculate the withholding to avoid double taxation and which pay rates it would use to determine employees’ tax liability under the constructive receipt rule; and whether the County would withhold taxes on leave accrued in 2017, on all accrued leave (including that from previous years), or on leave accrued going forward after a certain date. Most importantly, the letter contravened what the County’s Labor Relations Manager had represented to the Association during negotiations in March and April 2017, thereby requiring the Association to figure out which set of representations were correct. Thus, the September 2017 letter did not, by itself, clearly inform the Association of the County’s planned change. The requisite notice came instead from the County’s November 2017 letter, which contained the specifics of how the County intended to implement its tax plan. (pp. 44-45.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 87 | 03/23/21 |
| 2758M | County of Ventura 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand An employer must provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before implementation, just as it would for a decision involving a mandatory subject of bargaining. Once the union receives proper advance notice, it must demand to bargain effects or risk waiving its right to do so. The union’s demand must clearly communicate its desire to bargain over the effects of the decision, as opposed to the decision itself, and identify the matters within the scope of representation that it proposes to bargain. A union is not required to demand to bargain effects where an employer fails to provide notice prior to implementing the change. (p. 42.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 87 | 03/23/21 |
| 2740M | County of Merced 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand The County did not establish that Union waived its right to bargain for two independent reasons. First, the County came to a firm decision before providing the Union notice of the proposed change and an opportunity to bargain to agreement or impasse; accordingly, the Union was not obligated to request bargaining, or to accept the County’s offer to meet and confer after the employer has already reached a firm decision. Second, a waiver of bargaining rights must be clear and unmistakable, demonstrating that a party intentionally relinquished its right to bargain. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2017) PERB Decision No. 2518, p. 39 (LAUSD).) Any doubts must be resolved against the party asserting waiver. (Placentia Unified School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 595, p. 8.) In this case, the Union did not clearly and unmistakably demonstrate that it intentionally relinquished its right to bargain. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 29 | 08/10/20 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand The University failed to provide UC-AFT with adequate notice of its decision to outsource the Young Musician’s Program. By no later than March 6, 2013, University’s principal decisionmaker acted in consultation with the Young Musician Program’s director and its advisory board to transfer the Program to an outside entity. At that time, the University had not advised UC-AFT of the Program’s impending closure nor that it planned to continue the Program under the auspices of a non-University entity. (pp. 33-34.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Like the other PERB-administered statutes, the statutory scheme under HEERA presumes that notice of changes to negotiable matters will be provided “in a meaningful manner at a meaningful time.” (City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 29-30.) What constitutes meaningful notice will necessarily vary depending on the circumstances of each case, but, at minimum, an employer must give notice sufficiently in advance of reaching a firm decision to allow the representative an opportunity to consult its members and decide whether to request information, demand bargaining, acquiesce to the change, or take other action. By any measure, the University failed to provide UC-AFT with meaningful notice of the decision to transfer the Young Musician’s Program’s operations to a non-University entity. As early as November 2012, the University’s principal decisionmaker asked the campus general counsel to research two options, “each of which would get [the Program] out from under all the personnel issues without damaging the program.” Despite having decided as early as March 2013 to have the Program separate from the University, a University Labor Relations Specialist advised UC-AFT in April 2013 that the University was “seriously considering whether it should continue with the [Program].” In May 2013, the University informed UC-AFT that it had decided to close the Program, effective June 1, 2013. Throughout these communications, the University made no mention of its plans to subcontract or “transfer” the Program’s operations to a successor organization. By the time UC-AFT learned of the University’s decision to transfer the Program to the successor program (as opposed to simply closing it), the transfer was already well underway. (pp. 45-47.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand A union cannot waive bargaining over a negotiable matter when it had no actual or constructive notice of the issue until after the employer had already reached a firm decision. Even if an employer does not implement the change in policy until later, or perhaps not at all, its act of reaching a firm decision to do so without first providing meaningful notice and opportunity for bargaining violates the bilateral scheme of collective bargaining contemplated by our statutes. Where, as here, the bargaining representative has no actual or constructive notice of plans to alter negotiable matters, there is no meaningful notice, and thus no issue of waiver of the right to bargain. (p. 47.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2524M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Union was not bound by its predecessor’s acquiescence in a past practice, and was permitted to demand to bargain over the practice. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand The Board rejected Charging Party’s exception that, by requesting bargaining over a single issue following impasse, the Charging Party had effectively broken the deadlock and revived the Respondent’s duty to bargain over the single issue, which had already been part of the overall deadlock reached in negotiations for a successor MOU. (pp. 10-11.) The Board found no violation of the duty to bargain because Charging Party’s request for single-issue negotiations did not break the impasse and revive the Respondent’s duty to bargain. Although impasse necessarily entails an overall deadlock in negotiations, it may stem from disagreement over a single subject, if the disagreement is of such importance that the parties’ failure to agree on that one subject causes all negotiations to break down. (pp. 10-11.) The party asserting that an impasse has been broken must point to the changed circumstances that would justify a return to the bargaining table. Mere speculation regarding possible concessions by the other party is insufficient to revive bargaining. There must be substantial evidence that a party is committed to a new bargaining position. Vague and general statements about possible concessions or a request by one party for additional meetings, if unaccompanied by an indication of the areas in which that party foresees future concessions, are insufficient to break an impasse where the other party has clearly announced that its position is final. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2571M | City of San Ramon 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Even if parties have reached a bona fide impasse after completing negotiations in good faith, an impasse “can be terminated by nearly any change in bargaining-related circumstances” that is sufficient to suggest that “attempts to adjust differences may no longer be futile.” (PERB v. Modesto City Schools District (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881, 899.) “Most obviously, an impasse will be broken when one party announces a retreat from some of its negotiating demands.” (Ibid.) Once impasse is broken, “the duty to bargain revives.” (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2443M | City of Milpitas 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand A union president’s e-mail requesting to bargain over any proposed change in working conditions contains a sufficiently clear demand to bargain over the contracting out of proposed bargaining unit work. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 36 | 07/29/15 |
| 2313E | Rio Hondo Community College District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand The duty to bargain over effects of a non-negotiable decision arises when an employer makes a firm decision. Once a firm decision is made, an employer must provide the union with notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate before taking action that impacts matters within the scope of representation. This includes the duty to seek clarification of what is proposed for bargaining and whether what is proposed falls within the scope of representation. A union’s effects bargaining demand is sufficient if it clearly identifies negotiable areas of impact, viz., subject matters within the scope of representation, and clearly indicates a desire to bargain over the effects of the decision as opposed to the decision itself. Upon receiving such a demand, the duty to bargain obliges the employer either to bargain, or to seek clarification of the union’s negotiability rationale. If the employer seeks such clarification, and it thereafter refuses to bargain, it may defend this refusal on the ground that the union’s bargaining demand, as clarified, failed to address an impact that was both reasonably foreseeable and within the scope of representation. If the employer refuses to bargain without seeking clarification of the union’s negotiability rationale, it fails to meet and negotiate in good faith. A union’s effects bargaining demand should afford the employer general notice of the union’s interest in the effects of the decision. An effects bargaining demand need not be specific or made in a particular form so long as it adequately signifies to the employer a desire to negotiate on a subject within the scope of representation, to wit, the effects of a non-negotiable decision rather than the decision itself. Further, the demand must identify clearly the areas of impact, viz., matters within the scope of representation, on which it proposes to bargain. The proper place to clarify bargaining demands and proposals is at the bargaining table itself. This is especially true in effects bargaining, where parties must anticipate the future impact of a non-negotiable decision announced but not yet implemented. When approaching effects bargaining, parties must anticipate changes yet to flow from the employer’s decision. Union and employer may disagree over what effects are possible and within the scope of representation. Thus, clarification is essential. Upon receiving an effects bargaining demand, and before refusing to negotiate, an employer must attempt to clarify through discussions with the union any uncertainty as to what is proposed for bargaining and whether it falls within the scope of representation. Refusing an effects bargaining demand without first attempting to clarify ambiguities and or whether matters proposed for bargaining fall within the scope of representation, violates the duty to bargain in good faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 197 | 03/21/13 |
| 2385E | Bellflower Unified School District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Once an employer makes a firm decision to act on a matter within its managerial prerogative, a duty arises to provide the exclusive representative with notice and an opportunity to negotiate the effects of that decision. An exclusive representative need not recite a formulaic phrase, but may express its request in any form that conveys its desire to meet and confer or negotiate about a matter within the scope of representation. Before an employer may refuse to negotiate after receiving an effects bargaining demand, it must attempt to clarify through discussions with the union any uncertainty as to what is proposed for bargaining and whether it falls within the scope of representation. Once the District made a firm decision to close the school site and, subsequently, received a valid effects bargaining demand, the duty to bargain in good faith over the effects of that decision arose. Even if the classified positions to be abolished by the action taken at the school board meeting did not result in layoffs, reductions in work hours, reductions in pay, or the closing of the school site, the District was still required to meet with the union to seek clarification. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 17 | 06/30/14 |
| 2298M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Once an employer makes a layoff decision, the employer is obliged to notify the organization representing employees of the decision and to meet and confer in good faith, upon request, regarding the reasonably foreseeable impacts and effects of the layoff decision. Having reached a firm decision, driven by labor cost considerations, to lay off employees, an MMBA employer must meet and confer, upon request, with the union representing the employees, both as to the implementation (including the timing, and the number and identity of employees to be laid off) and as to the effects of the layoff on the remaining employees, including post-layoff workload and safety conditions of remaining employees. Thus, where a layoff is driven by labor cost considerations, an employer must meet and confer in good faith, upon request, over the implementation and the reasonably foreseeable impacts and effects on remaining employees. Where an employer believes a matter to be outside the scope of mandatory meeting and conferring, it is obliged to explore the matter in meet and confer discussions. Thereupon, the employer may change its position and meet and confer on the matter, or it may continue to assert its prior position and decline to meet and confer. In the latter case, if the employer is incorrect, its refusal to meet and confer is unlawful. The hospital’s refusal to meet and confer, at least on safety and workload issues, was absolute and thus unlawful. (City of Richmond (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259; Sierra Joint Community College District (1981) PERB Decision No. 179.) more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 137 | 12/20/12 |
| 2308M | City of Santa Rosa 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Unilateral impositions after the completion of impasse procedures do not impose a collective bargaining agreement with a duration clause limiting negotiations for a specified period. The employer’s request to the union to convene negotiations following implementation of a last, best and final offer does not demonstrate bad faith bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 182 | 03/08/13 |
| 2315M | County of Sacramento 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Once and employer makes a firm decision to change negotiable terms and conditions of employment, it must notify the exclusive representative and provide it a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. Union’s demand to negotiate over effects of a non-negotiable management decision must indicate that it is effects, as opposed to the decision, over which the union seeks to negotiate, and the demand must identify the matters within scope potentially affected by the proposed management change. Mere protests or objections to the employer’s proposed change do not suffice as a demand to negotiate. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 206 | 04/15/13 |
| 2287H | Trustees of the California State University 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Under HEERA, before implementing a non-negotiable decision, the parties must first negotiate over effects that have an impact on matters within the scope of bargaining. Once a firm decision is made, an employer must provide the exclusive representative with notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. When claiming that an employer’s non-negotiable decision will have an effect on a subject within the scope of bargaining, the charging party bears the burden of alleging facts demonstrating a reasonably foreseeable impact on employees’ working conditions. Because bargaining over effects contemplates that negotiations will occur prior to implementation of the non-negotiable decision, the parties must assess the effects of the decision prospectively, without the benefit of hindsight. Where the employee organization has made a timely demand for bargaining on an issue within the scope of bargaining, the employee has the following three choices: (1) accede to the demand and address the employee organization’s concerns in negotiations; (2) ask the employee organization for its negotiation justification; or (3) refuse the employee organization’s demand. In choosing the third option, the employer does so at its peril if its refusal is later determined to be unjustified. Union met its burden of establishing a prima facie case of failure to bargain effects of management decision to implement executive order governing student mental health services, where request identified reasonably foreseeable impact on workload, thereby triggering duty to bargain potential impacts prior to implementation. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 79 | 10/04/12 |
| 2218E | Pasadena Area Community College District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Decision to cancel winter intersession classes was outside scope of representation. No violation of duty to bargain effects, where no demand to bargain negotiable effects of decision was ever made. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 80 | 11/09/11 |
| 2125M | County of Fresno 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand No duty to bargain the implementation of furloughs when it represents the application of existing policy. Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. Erroneous publication of the policy by the County Personnel Department suggesting that certain bargaining units were exempt from the policy was not sufficient to show that the Board of Supervisors had in fact amended the policy to exclude those bargaining units. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 122 | 08/11/10 |
| 1876Ha | Trustees of the California State University 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Notice of a proposed change in policy must be given sufficiently in advance of a firm decision to make such a change to allow the exclusive representative a reasonable amount of time to make a demand to negotiate. When an employer has made a firm decision to make a change in policy, the failure to request bargaining will not be considered a waiver of a right to bargain if the request would be futile. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 73 | 04/15/09 |
| 2110S | State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain effects need not identify specific effects. * * *Demand to meet and confer over negotiable effects of a non-negotiable decision must identify those subjects within the scope of representation impacted by the decision as well as the specific effects over which the union wishes to bargain. Letter stating union’s displeasure that it was not afforded an opportunity to show the department why acute care unit closure was not cost-effective did not constitute valid demand to bargain negotiable effects of the closure decision. Allegation that union representatives “sought to negotiate over the decision to close and its impact,” absent further details of the bargaining demand, insufficient to establish an oral demand to bargain effects. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 90 | 06/01/10 |
| 2097M | County of Riverside * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain need not identify specific effects, and also that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of its decision. * * *In dealing with effects bargaining, the employee organization is entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to bargain over the negotiable effects of a non-negotiable decision. Where formal notice is not given, but the employee organization receives actual notice of a decision, the effects of which it believes to be negotiable, the employer’s failure to give formal notice is of no legal import and the burden is on the employee organization to request bargaining. The employee organization’s request must clearly indicate the desire to bargain over the effects as opposed to the decision itself. Failure by the employee organization to make a valid request to bargain the negotiable effects of the decision constitutes a waiver of the right to bargain regarding those effects. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 49 | 02/10/10 |
| 2081S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Statements that union believed proposal to waiver of statutory rights and requests for clarification did not communicate a clear opposition to further negotiations over the proposal. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 10 | 11/24/09 |
| 1976E | Berkeley Unified School District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Parties’ ability to rescind collective bargaining agreement provision based on mutual mistake of fact does not create a duty to bargain over a replacement provision. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 138 | 09/09/08 |
| 1969E | Beverly Hills Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H and County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, where the Board held that a demand to bargain only needs to identify potential prospective effects, not actual effects, and by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain need not identify specific effects. * * *Demand to meet and confer over negotiable effects of a non-negotiable decision must identify those subjects within the scope of representation impacted by the decision as well as the specific effects over which the union wishes to bargain. Demand letter requesting to bargain over “the impact and effects of requiring tests to be released” failed to identify negotiable subjects or effects and therefore district had no duty to meet and confer with union over effects of test release policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 115 | 07/08/08 |
| 1942C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, where the Board held that an exclusive representative is not required to identify specific effects in its demand to bargain the effects of a non-negotiable decision, but such demand must place the employer on notice that the exclusive representative seeks to negotiate over effects and that it believes the proposed change affects one or more subjects within the scope of representation. * * *The rule under EERA in Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 223, which holds that while a request to bargain the impact of a decision not within the scope of bargaining does not have to be in a particular form, it must adequately signify the desire to negotiate on a subject within the scope of bargaining, also applies in cases adjudicated under the Trial Court Act.) (Board held the following did not constitute sufficient requests to bargain over the effects of the decision to change a job description for court reporters by including Realtime reporting requirements: (1) steward/court reporter’s statements that she did not agree with the job description; (2) union representative’s e-mail requesting a “formal meet and confer,” because they were not in agreement with the job specification; and (3) union representative’s e-mail stating that the Court’s position that it did not have an obligation to meet and confer was incorrect. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 38 | 01/31/08 |
| 1848S | State of California (Department of Corrections) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *No prima facie violation of State’s duty to bargain effects where there is no evidence that the Union demanded to bargain the effects of the change in staffing levels or submitted proposals addressing safety concerns. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 150 | 08/09/06 |
| 1822E | Santee Elementary School District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand A valid request to negotiate will be found if it adequately indicates a desire to negotiate on a subject within scope. (Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 223.) In this case, STA made a reasoned decision not to demand to barain the adoption of the Board Policy after being given 2 weeks notice of the Board’s intent. Protests over District’s contemplated change is not a demand to bargain. An employer is obligated to provide the exclusive representative with notice and an opportunity to negotiate over the effects of its decisions that have an impact upon matters within scope. (Oakland Unified School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 540.) Union did not waive its right to negotiate the impacts of the Board Policy because it had waived its right to negotiate over the decision to adopt the BP. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 72 | 02/22/06 |
| 1762S | State of California (Department of Consumer Affairs) 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Dills Act Section 3515.5 does not provide a right to self-representation. While Wilson-Combs has the right to meet with her employer without the union, the State is not required to meet and confer with her over terms and conditions of employment. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 121 | 04/15/05 |
| 1664M | City and County of San Francisco 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Local 790 did not provide any specifics on how the City’s reorganization and relocation of work units impacted terms and conditions of employment or of any attempts to demand bargaining over the impacts. Therefore, the Board dismissed these claims of unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 231 | 07/27/04 |
| 1481E | Berkeley Unified School District * * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Employer’s refusal to allow union representative to attend meeting between teachers and supervisor did not constitute failure to bargain in good faith, since there was no allegation that parties requested to negotiate regarding a matter within the scope of bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33071 | 05/15/02 |
| 1388S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand In the event an employer is unsure whether or not a particular subject is negotiable, it is under an obligation to ask the union for its negotiability justification. The very essence of the duty to negotiate in good faith is the effort to reach agreement. A refusal to address proposals which are unclear is inconsistent with the statutory obligation. Such an obligation existed in the present case, where the reorganization altered the supervisory structure of the institution, and affected the level of supervision for bargaining unit members. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31107 | 05/25/00 |
| A216E | San Jose-Evergreen Community College District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Employer acts at own peril if it refuses to bargain with or recognize the exclusive representative without demonstrating "by objective considerations that it has some reasonable grounds for believing the union has lost its majority status." more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21203 | 10/29/90 |
| 1287E | Antelope Valley Union High School District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand While certain terms and conditions of employment survive expiration of the contract, a waiver of the statutory right to bargain does not remain in effect. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29168 | 09/25/98 |
| 1174H | Trustees of the California State University (Academic Professionals of California) 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Where contract language clearly and unambiguously provided that parties could not delete any term of contract without written amendment, Board refused to find that contract terms expired when reopened; pp. 6-7. Because contract language precludes the deletion of any term of the contract without written amendment, Board finds it unnecessary to decide whether NLRB decisions in Speedrack, Inc. (1989) 293 NLRB 1054 [131 LRRM 1347] and Hydrologics, Inc. (1989) 293 NLRB 1060 [131 LRRM 1350] apply to public sector labor relations under the HEERA; p. 7. Where contract language clearly and unambiguously provided that parties could not delete any term of contract without written amendment, University's insistence on maintaining status quo did not constitute unilateral change; p. 7; p. 23, proposed dec. constitute unilateral change; p. 7; p. 23, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28019 | 11/12/96 |
| 1053E | Rowland Unified School District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Once impasse is reached either party may refuse to negotiate further and the employer is free to implement changes reasonably comprehended within its last, best and final offer. However, impasse suspends the parties' obligation to bargain only until changed circumstances indicate that an agreement may be possible; p. 7. The duty to bargain revives when one party proposes a concession from its earlier bargaining position which indicates that agreement may be possible; p. 7. The district's duty to resume negotiations following good faith completion of impasse arises only if the association's proposals contain a concession from its earlier position which demonstrates that circumstances have changed and agreement may be possible; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25126 | 09/01/94 |
| 1221H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore) * * * OVERRULED IN PART BY The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *Effects bargaining demand need not contain laundry list of all possible effects implicated by a change; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28161 | 09/26/97 |
| 0373E | Mt. Diablo Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b and OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b and OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *The Association’s general request to negotiate the “implementation and effects” of the District’s layoff decision was a legally sufficient initial request to negotiate; pp. 21-22. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15017 | 12/30/83 |
| 0307E | Delano Joint Union High School District 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand Request to negotiate need not be specific or in any particular form. Instead its important for the chargnig party to have signified some desire to negotiate. Citing Newman-Crows Landing PERB Dec. No. 223; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14146 | 05/05/83 |
| 0919E | Sylvan Union Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *No prima facie violation of District's duty to bargain effects where Association receives actual notice of decision and fails to make an adequate demand to bargain. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23017 | 01/07/92 |