SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION – Staffing Practice
Single Topic for Decision 2112I
Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text
1000.02134 – Staffing Practice
The charge failed to state a prima facie case for unlawful unilateral change, where the alleged changes were outside the scope of representation. Union alleged the employer made changes in practice by eliminating nine regular court interpreter assignments and leaving vacancies in daily as-needed assignments unfilled. The Court Interpreter Act specifically provides that the “delivery of court services” is outside the scope of representation, and the Board has held that an employer’s determination of staff or service levels is not within the scope of representation. A matter outside scope does not become a mandatory subject of bargaining because the parties negotiate over it or even reach an agreement. Charge fails to establish a prima facie case where the charge merely states that the employer made staffing decisions based on unlawful animus and not legitimate business reasons. A charging party has the burden to allege the “who, what, when, where and how” of an unfair practice. Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case.