EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2834E

View all topics for Decision 2834E

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

The union did not have to reassert or clarify its RFI after receiving the District’s response, because a union need not do so if it is sufficiently clear that the response did not fully satisfy the request, as it was in this case. Here, the District assessed and answered the union’s RFI as if it arose under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and consequently failed to explore means of obtaining requested information that was not in its central course database. It was sufficiently clear that the District failed to seek information beyond preexisting records and the District unequivocally stated that no more information would be forthcoming. (p. 14.) The Board partially overruled Trustees of the California State University (2004) PERB Decision No. 1732-H, to extent it suggests that an exclusive representative’s failure to reassert or clarify its information request upon receiving a partial response from the employer always bars finding a violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, regardless of whether it was sufficiently clear that the response was incomplete. (p. 14.)