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 2875E


View all topics for Decision 2875E

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

The Board uses the word “effects” as shorthand for a broad category that comprises both the effects and implementation of a decision on a non-mandatory bargaining subject. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 265, 276 (Richmond Fire Fighters); City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, p. 54, fn. 12; County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, p. 12; City of Palo Alto (2017) PERB Decision No. 2388a-M, p. 40; County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, p. 25, fn. 16; Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System (2012) PERB Decision No. 2298-M, pp. 6, 12, 14, 16-17, 20 & 22.) Negotiations over implementation typically include proposed alternatives. (The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855, p. 14, fn. 8 (Accelerated Schools); Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 52 (Oxnard).) For instance, even though an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to lay off employees, the California Supreme Court has noted the scope of required effects bargaining includes “the timing of layoffs and the number and identity of the employees affected.” (Richmond Firefighters, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 265, 276.) Thus, one purpose of effects bargaining is to permit the exclusive representative an opportunity to persuade the employer to consider alternatives that may diminish the impact of the decision on employees. (Accelerated Schools, supra, p. 14, fn. 8; Oxnard, supra, p. 52.) (pp. 10-11.)