EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION) – Change in Past Practice

Single Topic for Decision 1695M

View all topics for Decision 1695M

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

The allegation that a manager’s statement that one provision of the MOU is “no longer necessary” because it was covered under another section of the MOU does not state a prima facie case of unilateral change. With regard to the allegation that requiring a deadline to request an oral hearing comprised a unilateral change in past practice, the pertinent MOU provision, which allows a response to and review of proposed disciplinary actions, contains no clear timelines for these events to occur other than the requirement of 10 working days advance notice before the disciplinary action is implemented. Although notices of termination contained a deadline to request a meeting, AFSCME provided no evidence of a past practice not requiring a deadline to request an oral presentation. There is no evidence that AFSCME requested an oral presentation, only that it complained about the deadline imposed in the notice. Therefore, there is no evidence of unilateral change. With regard to the allegation that the appeal must occur before the employees are terminated, under the parties’ MOU, employees are not entitled to a hearing before the effective date of their termination; rather, employees have the right to appeal 14 calendar days after the disciplinary action is imposed. Therefore, AFSCME has not provided evidence of unilateral change. The City has conformed to the terms of the MOU and thus has not unilaterally changed disciplinary procedures.