EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION) – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2796E

View all topics for Decision 2796E

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

A contract breach does not constitute an independent EERA violation, and therefore is only actionable at PERB if it would “also constitute an unfair practice.” (EERA, § 3541.5, subd. (b).) A contract breach has a “generalized effect or continuing impact” if either: (1) the breach changes a policy or employment term applicable to future situations; or (2) the employer acts unilaterally based upon an incorrect legal interpretation or insistence on a non-existent legal right that could be relevant to future disputes. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 8; see also San Bernardino Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2599, pp. 7-8; City of Davis (2016) PERB Decision No. 2494-M, pp. 20-23; City of Montebello (2016) PERB Decision No. 2491-M, p. 15 [continuing impact or generalized effect found where employer asserts it had a contractual or other right to take the action, essentially asserting a right to repeat the disputed conduct]; County of Santa Clara (2015) PERB Decision No. 2431, p. 19; Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2262, p. 15 [application of zero tolerance provision of drug testing policy had a generalized effect and continuing impact]; Regents of the University of California (2010) PERB Decision No. 2101-H, p. 25; Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (1997) PERB Decision No. 1186, p. 4 [finding unilateral change because there was “no evidence to suggest” that the employer would in the future refrain from taking similar actions].)