SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated

Single Topic for Decision 2388M


View all topics for Decision 2388M

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

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated

MMBA section 3507 prescribes a different scope of consultation from that under section 3505, because in section 3507, the Legislature stated with particularity those subjects for consultation. The adoption of rules and regulations concerning either interest arbitration or mediation or both, falls squarely within the public agency’s duty, established by MMBA section 3507, to consult in good faith. County of Santa Clara (2010) PERB Decision No. 2114-M; County of Santa Clara (2010) PERB Decision No. 2120-M; DiQuisto v. County of Santa Clara (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 236; and City of Fresno v. the People ex rel. Fresno Firefighters, IAFF Local 753, et al. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 82 do not provide guidance for our construction of section 3507 regarding a public agency’s duty to consult in good faith. In MMBA section 3507, the Legislature stated with particularity those matters a public agency may include in its rules and regulations for administration of employer employee relations, and over which it must consult. We deem these matters to be “mandatory subjects” for consultation pursuant to section 3507(a). Where an employer believes that the subject over which an employee organization desires to meet and confer exceeds the employer’s duty to meet and confer, or an employer is otherwise in doubt as to its meet and confer obligation, the employer must seek clarification. Such clarification should occur within the meet and confer process, not merely by the exchange of legal positions through correspondence or in comments between party representatives at public meetings of the governing authority of the agency. Upon receiving the union’s request or becoming aware of the union’s wish to meet, the City’s obligation was to offer to meet and discuss the City’s position that the issue on which the union sought to meet was beyond the scope of representation. By failing to offer to meet with the union’s representatives, the City violated its consultation duty under section 3507.