EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES – Failure to Provide Information
Single Topic for Decision 1227S
Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text
606.17000 – Failure to Provide Information
In resolving information request cases, each case turns on the particular facts involved; p. 4 (citations). An exclusive representative only has the right to obtain information necessary and relevant to its representational obligations under the Dills Act; pp. 4-5; No right to information relative to the economic justifications for nonnegotiable decisions; fn. 5. Failure to respond to a request is a violation because the employer cannot simply refuse to provide information or ignore a request; Id. at p. 5 (citations). Information requested that pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining is presumptively relevant; Id. When a request is made for information that is presumptively relevant, the burden shifts to the employer to either provide the information within a reasonable time or overcome the presumption of relevance; the burden shifts to the employer to either provide the information within a reasonable time or overcome the presumption of relevance; to a mandatory subject of bargaining, the requestor must show that the requested information is relevant and necessary to its representational responsibilities; p. 6. The employer may defend its failure to provide information by showing the request that is unduly burdensome or the requested information does not exist employer need not furnish information in a form more organized than its own records; p. 7. If the employer partially complies and the union fails to communicate its dissatisfaction, or to reassert or clarify its request, no violation will be found; p. 7. Information sought to ascertain the impact of the pending layoff on unit members and to formulate exclusive representative's negotiation strategy is entitled to the presumption of relevance since it pertains immediately to the subjects of wages and hours; p. 8. strategy is entitled to the presumption of relevance since it pertains immediately to the subjects of wages and hours; p. 8. to presumption of relevance; p. 11. Requested information about speculative or indirect effects of layoff is not entitled to the presumption of relevance; charging party failed to meet burden of showing that the request is relevant; pp. 11-12.