EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION) – In General
Single Topic for Decision 2139M
Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text
602.01000 – In General
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, where the Board overruled the decision’s interpretation of the scope of representation test, and County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2663-M, where the Board overruled the remainder of the decision as to its specific application of the scope of representation test to promotional opportunities, including procedures. * * *
Three-part test established in Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623 applies to determine whether a matter is within the scope of representation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act: (1) Does the management action have a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees. If not, there is no duty to meet and confer. (2) Does the significant and adverse effect arise from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision. If not, then the meet and confer requirement applies. (3) If both factors are present, the Board applies a balancing test. The action is within the scope of representation only if the employer’s need for unencumbered decisionmaking in managing its operations is outweighed by the benefit to employer-employee relations of bargaining about the action in question.