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 single deviation from a contract can have a continuing impact rather than merely constituting an “isolated” breach, if the employer has “imposed its own interpretation” on a contractual provision, created a standard not found in the contract, or interpreted the contract in a manner contrary to its intended meaning. (City of Davis (2016) PERB Decision No. 2494-M, p. 20 [explaining the Board’s holdings in three cases involving Regents of the University of California].) Such conduct has a continuing impact to the extent it suggests that a similar scenario may arise in the future and the employer may then take the same approach. (Id. at p. 21; see also Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 9 [single refusal to arbitrate a grievance supported a unilateral change claim because employer asserted the right to act similarly in the future]; Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee & California Superior Courts of Region 2 (2020) PERB Decision No. 2701-I, p. 54, quoting County of Riverside (2003) PERB Decision No. 1577-M, p. 6 [“The failure to properly process even a single grievance has a generalized effect or continuing impact on bargaining unit members’ terms and conditions of employment if ‘the action is based upon the employer’s belief that it had a contractual right to take the action without negotiating with the union.’”]; San Bernardino, supra, PERB Decision No. 2599-M, pp. 7-8 [decision to use GPS to track a single employee had a continuing impact because employer asserted contractual right to do so]; Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2431-M, p. 19 [decision not to reimburse single employee for tuition expenses could have continuing impact if it reflected employer’s assertion of incorrect contractual interpretation that could arise again].)