EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION – In General

Single Topic for Decision 1876H

View all topics for Decision 1876H

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

* * * SUPERSEDED by Trustees of the California State University (2009) PERB Decision No. 1876a-H, where, after the Court of Appeal reversed the Board’s finding that parking location is outside scope of representation because it did not involve the employment relationship, the Board found that under Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177, the employer did not need to bargain its decision to bar certain employees from parking in certain newly built parking structures. * * *

An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of representation. PERB uses a liberal standard, similar to a discovery-type standard, to determine relevance of the requested information. In defining the parameters of “necessary and relevant information” the Board has ruled that if the requested information pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining, it is presumptively relevant. Failure to provide such information is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of representation. In defining the parameters of “necessary and relevant information” the Board has ruled that if the requested information pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining, it is presumptively relevant. Information that does not pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining, however, is not presumptively relevant. In such cases, absent the presumption, the burden falls on the charging party to show the information sought is relevant and necessary to the discharge of its duty of representation.