EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000) – When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand

Single Topic for Decision 2758M

View all topics for Decision 2758M

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

The County’s September 2017 letter did not give the Association sufficiently clear notice of the County’s decision to begin withholding taxes based on constructive receipt income such that the Association was obligated to demand effects bargaining. The Association needed more information before it could make a viable demand to bargain the effects of the decision, including: when the County planned to implement the tax withholding; which unit members would be subject to withholding; how the County would calculate the withholding to avoid double taxation and which pay rates it would use to determine employees’ tax liability under the constructive receipt rule; and whether the County would withhold taxes on leave accrued in 2017, on all accrued leave (including that from previous years), or on leave accrued going forward after a certain date. Most importantly, the letter contravened what the County’s Labor Relations Manager had represented to the Association during negotiations in March and April 2017, thereby requiring the Association to figure out which set of representations were correct. Thus, the September 2017 letter did not, by itself, clearly inform the Association of the County’s planned change. The requisite notice came instead from the County’s November 2017 letter, which contained the specifics of how the County intended to implement its tax plan. (pp. 44-45.)