EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000) – Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201)

Single Topic for Decision 2317Sa

View all topics for Decision 2317Sa

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

The State Personnel Board does not have a duty to meet and confer over its proposed rules concerning state civil service disciplinary hearings and appeals. Even though the Governor or his designee is the state’s representative for purposes of meeting and conferring, it is well established that the appointing authority will be liable for violations of Dills Act section 3519(c) when the appointing authority makes a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment of its own employees. Although Dills Act section 3519(a), proscribing unfair practices, declares that it will be unlawful for the state to refuse or fail to meet and confer in good faith, the Legislature did not intend by this wording to impose on the State Personnel Board a duty to negotiate with employee organizations when it is exercising its regulatory function, as opposed to acting as an employer or appointing authority of its own employees. An agency must be acting in its role as an “employer” or “appointing authority” in order to be subject to the Dills Act. When the State Personnel Board adopted regulations regarding disciplinary procedures for civil service employees, it was acting in its regulatory role to administer the civil service system, specifically regarding discipline hearings and appeal procedures.