SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION – Subcontracting

Single Topic for Decision 2694M

View all topics for Decision 2694M

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

City’s subcontracting decision within scope of bargaining for at least two separate reasons. First, City’s reasons for subcontracting, including desire to reduce labor costs and performance of work in a timely manner, provided one basis for finding that the City’s subcontracting decision amenable to bargaining. Independently, PERB found a bargaining obligation because the subcontracted duties were substantially the same as those performed by unit employees, and City decided to use non-bargaining unit employees to perform substantially the same types of job duties that bargaining unit employees traditionally and historically performed. Where an employer intends to continue performing some of the same duties as before, while using non-unit employees to perform such duties, there is no need to look at the employer’s motivation for subcontracting. City did not have a duty to bargain prior to reducing the amount of bargaining unit work it needed or wanted to perform, but did have a duty to bargain before deciding to use non-bargaining unit alternatives to perform remaining and future work. Where City’s decision to layoff was linked to its decision to subcontract remaining and future work, City committed a clear MMBA violation by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain over the decision. Fact that the City subcontracted less than its otherwise full complement of work did not remove the subcontracting decision from the scope of representation.