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

Even if subcontracted work could fairly be termed “new work,” which was not the case, it still would have been sufficiently similar to that which the bargaining unit traditionally performed so as to require bargaining before any subcontracting decision. (See Overnite Transportation Co. (2000) 330 NLRB 1275, 1276, affd. in part, reversed in part mem. (3d Cir. 2000) 248 F.3d 1131(Overnite); Mi Pueblo Foods (2014) 360 NLRB 1097, 1099 [same].) The principles articulated in Overnite and Mi Pueblo Foods are not foreign to PERB precedent. PERB has noted that an “actual or potential” diminution of union work through subcontracting not only withdraws wages and hours associated with the contracted-out work from the unit, but also weakens the collective strength of employees in the unit, which in turn undermines their collective ability to effectively deal with the employer. (Arcohe Union School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 360, pp. 5-6; see also City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 21-22.)