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
Single Topic for Decision 1942C
Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text
601.04000 – 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.