EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000) – Decision vs Effects Bargaining

Single Topic for Decision 2868M


View all topics for Decision 2868M

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

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining

Even when an employer has no obligation to bargain over a decision, it must provide notice and an opportunity to meet and confer over any reasonably foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of representation. (County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Decision No. 2799-M, pp. 24-25.) An employer normally may not implement the decision while effects bargaining continues and instead must wait until the parties have reached agreement or impasse over the negotiable effects of the decision. (Id. at p. 25.) The employer violates its duty to bargain if it fails to provide adequate advance notice, and in such circumstances the union need not ask to bargain effects as a prerequisite to filing an unfair practice charge. (Ibid.) However, where an employer does provide adequate notice, the union must request to bargain any reasonably foreseeable effects on negotiable matters. (Ibid.) The union’s request to bargain need not be formalistic or burdensome, nor anticipate every imaginable effect a proposed change may have, but rather must only identify negotiable areas of impact, thereby placing the employer on notice that it believes the employer’s proposed decision would affect one or more negotiable topics. (Ibid.) (pp. 57-58.)