EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000) – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

Single Topic for Decision 2819E

View all topics for Decision 2819E

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

A single indicator of bad faith, if egregious, can be a sufficient basis for finding that a party has failed to bargain in good faith. However, here the District’s conduct demonstrates multiple bad faith indicia, including: failing to respond to proposals in a timely manner (State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (1989) PERB Decision No. 739-S, pp. 4-5); failing to prepare adequately for negotiations and failing to take one’s bargaining obligation seriously (Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2018) PERB Decision No. 2558, p. 26; Oakland Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 326, pp. 33-34 (Oakland)); failing to explain a bargaining position in sufficient detail or to provide requested information supporting a bargaining position, without an adequate reason for such failure (City of Davis (2018) PERB Decision No. 2582-M, pp. 19-20; City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 42); incorrectly labeling the other party’s proposal as non-mandatory or failing to seek clarification of a proposal to determine if it relates to a mandatory subject (City of Palo Alto (2017) PERB Decision No. 2388a-M, p. 33; City of Selma (2014) PERB Decision No. 2380-M, p. 16); and making predictably unacceptable proposals (Oakland, supra, PERB Decision No. 326, p. 38). Taken in their totality, these indicia demonstrate the District’s lack of intent to come to an agreement about any of the Federation’s just cause proposals. (pp 37-38.)