EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES – In General
Single Topic for Decision 1895E
Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text
608.01000 – In General
The District violated EERA when it failed to meet and negotiate in good faith by refusing, during the 2003-2004 re-opener negotiations, to negotiate concerning the selection of a health insurance carrier. The fact that the health insurance carrier language was contained in the Compensation Article, required the District to negotiate the Association's proposal related to that article; the District did not act in good faith in advancing its positions related to the negotiability of the health care carrier and waiver language. Although the pre-paid legal services plan was negotiable, the District did not unilaterally implement the program, because the program did not have a generalized and continued impact on the bargaining unit. The Association's proposal regarding the make up and dissemination of the STAR results is not negotiable and impinged upon managerial rights. Although the collective bargaining agreement language waives the right to negotiate the health carrier, with the parties agreeing instead to consult, the Compensation Article was subject to negotiation during the 2003-2004 school year negotiations as a re-opener. Since the health care carrier language in dispute is part of the Compensation Article, the District should have negotiated the Association's re-opener proposal related to health carriers, even though the proposal did not include an express repudiation of the contract’s waiver language.