Headnote for 2761M, 601.03 Decision v. Effects Bargaining - California Public Employment Relations Board

EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000) – Decision vs Effects Bargaining

Single Topic for Decision 2761M

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

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining

Advance notice and bargaining are the primary means by which the MMBA promotes its central purpose—communication—and would lead to greater understanding and harmony going forward. Work opportunities, hours, and mandatory furlough periods are within the scope of representation. (See, e.g., Modoc County Office of Education (2019) PERB Decision No. 2684, p. 10; City of Long Beach (2012) PERB Decision No. 2296-M, p. 23; County of Fresno (2010) PERB Decision No. 2125-M, adopting warning letter at p. 3.) A decision to contract with a striker replacement company had foreseeable effects on these mandatory subjects of bargaining. The employer therefore was required to provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before implementation. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, p. 12.)