EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION) – In General

Single Topic for Decision 2876M


View all topics for Decision 2876M

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

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.01000 – In General

Workplace policies generally fall within the scope of representation if they materially alter employees’ disciplinary risks. (County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M, p. 24; Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2262, p. 12; Trustees of the California State University (2003) PERB Decision No. 1507-H, adopting proposed decision at pp. 12-13; State of California (Water Resources Control Board) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1337-S, pp. 7-8.) This standard has an exception: a new policy does not trigger decision bargaining—even though it has disciplinary consequences—if those consequences are incidental to a decision unrelated to employee or labor relations. (San Bernardino Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2599, pp. 8-12 (San Bernardino).) In San Bernardino, the employer placed GPS on a security officer’s truck, with the ultimate goal to improve public services by monitoring the officer. (Id. at pp. 10-11, fn. 8.) Because it sought to accomplish its purpose by changing an employment term or condition, the employer had a decision bargaining duty. (Ibid.) In contrast, where the purpose of a change is to safeguard the public as a general matter, not mediated mainly through altering an employment practice, then only effects bargaining is required. (Ibid.; County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M, pp. 24-25; County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Decision No. 2799-M, pp. 21-22.) (pp. 25-27.)