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

Single Topic for Decision 2875E


View all topics for Decision 2875E

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

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated

Relying on analogous precedent holding that an employer must bargain over the amount of layoff notice employees receive, either in effects/implementation bargaining over a particular layoff decision or as a mandatory subject if the issue arises as a proposed new or changed policy of general application, the Board held that an employer must bargain over notice of a school closure, either in effects/implementation bargaining over a particular closure decision or as a mandatory subject if the issue arises as a proposed new or changed policy of general application. Thus, while an employer has no duty to adopt a prospective policy providing for minimum notice of closures, where it does so, that becomes the status quo, and a subsequent change normally requires decision bargaining, absent a valid business necessity defense. A policy on notice of closure is by no means permanent, however, as the employer need only bargain before changing it and retains “the ultimate power to refuse to agree on any particular issue.” (pp. 13-16.) As an alternate holding, the Board would reach the same conclusion (viz. that notice of closure is a mandatory bargaining subject, but notice is merely a bargainable implementation matter when it arises in the wake of a particular closure decision) under the general test set forth in Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177, which states that a subject falls within the scope of representation if: (1) it is logically and reasonably related to hours, wages or an enumerated term and condition of employment, (2) it 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. (Id. at pp. 4-5; Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 42.) (pp. 14-17.)