SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated

Single Topic for Decision 2803E

View all topics for Decision 2803E

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

The “scope of representation,” i.e. the group of mandatory bargaining topics under EERA, is “limited to matters relating to wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.” (EERA, § 3543.2, subd. (a)(1).) EERA provides that “matters not specifically enumerated are reserved to the public school employer.” (EERA, § 3543.2, subd. (a)(4).) However, the Legislature balanced this restrictive language with the expansive language noted above, which requires bargaining over “matters relating to wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.” (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 857-860.) The California Supreme Court, noting that these EERA provisions are in tension with one another and that the Legislature authorized PERB to apply its expertise to make close calls on matters that “relate to” employment terms and conditions, has specifically endorsed PERB’s three-part test for distinguishing between mandatory and non-mandatory bargaining topics. (Ibid.) Pursuant to that test, which the Board adopted in Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177 (Anaheim), an employer must bargain over a decision if: “(1) it is logically and reasonably related to hours, wages or an enumerated term and condition of employment, (2) the subject is of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur and the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is the appropriate means of resolving the conflict, and (3) the employer’s obligation to negotiate would not significantly abridge [its] freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of [its] mission.” (San Bernardino Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2599, p. 8, quoting Anaheim, supra, PERB Decision No. 177, pp. 4-5.)