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 2876M

View all topics for Decision 2876M

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

The MMBA’s duty to bargain in good faith extends to the implementation and effects of a decision that has a foreseeable effect on matters within the scope of representation, even where the decision itself falls outside the scope. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, pp. 11-12.) Thus, even when an employer has no obligation to bargain over a particular decision, it nonetheless 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. (Ibid.) The employer violates its duty to bargain if it fails to provide adequate advance notice, and in such circumstances the union need not demand to bargain effects as a prerequisite to filing an unfair practice charge. (Id. at p. 12.) PERB uses the word “effects” as shorthand for a broad category that comprises both the effects and implementation of a decision on a nonmandatory bargaining subject. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 276; 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.) Negotiations over implementation typically include proposed alternatives. (The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855, p. 14, fn. 8; Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 52; County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Decision No. 2799-M, p. 27.) (pp. 30-31.)