EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES – Time Limit on Negotiations

Single Topic for Decision 2691M


View all topics for Decision 2691M

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

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.06000 – Time Limit on Negotiations

To withstand a facial challenge, PERB determines that the San Francisco City Charter, by requiring good faith bargaining, mandates that negotiations “continue for a reasonable period of time,” where Charter’s interest arbitration mechanism is intended to apply after the parties have reached impasse. The “reasonable period of time” that the MMBA requires for good faith negotiations will vary greatly from negotiation to negotiation, depending on many factors. (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 41.) In determining the existence of impasse on a given date, PERB focuses on numerous factors, including: the number and length of negotiation sessions; the extent to which the parties have exchanged information and thoroughly discussed proposals and counterproposals in good faith; and the nature of the unresolved issues and the parties’ discussions of such issues to date. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, pp. 9-12 (San Ramon); County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, pp. 13-14 (Riverside).) Continued movement on minor issues will not prevent a finding of impasse if the parties remain deadlocked on one or more major issues. (Regents of the University of California (1985) PERB Decision No. 520-H, p. 17.) However, both parties must believe they are at the “end of their rope,” which is typically negated if one party displays continuing movement, or if the other party references a deadline for completion of negotiations and acts in accordance with that deadline. (Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 13.)