IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2861M

View all topics for Decision 2861M

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

Under the MMBA, only a written impasse declaration triggers a union’s deadline to seek factfinding. Thus, absent a written declaration by either party, it is difficult for an employer to claim that a union was tardy in requesting factfinding, and by extension it is difficult for such an employer to assert that it has exhausted its bargaining obligation. While the District did not declare impasse, its April 20 letter was tantamount to an impasse declaration in that it indicated the District’s intent to conclude negotiations and impose its own terms. Even had this letter expressly declared impasse, in any event the District cannot prove that a bona fide impasse existed as of April 20. Here the District was not faced with a point where continued negotiations would be futile. Far from it. Negotiations had, in fact, been productive for the nine-day period in which the parties had been exchanging proposals. By its April 20 letter, the District abandoned any further negotiations and changed employment terms by implementing the Sequestration Policy. This conduct not only proves a prima facie case of unilateral change but also a prima facie case of outright refusal to bargain, a separate per se violation of the duty to meet and confer in good faith with IBEW. (p. 49, fn. 28 & p. 50.)