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 2900M


View all topics for Decision 2900M

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

Irrespective of whether a decision falls within the scope of representation, if the decision has reasonably foreseeable effects on represented employees’ terms and conditions of employment, the employer must provide adequate advance notice and opportunity to bargain in good faith over the decision’s implementation and effects. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 265 & 276 (Richmond Firefighters).) PERB uses the word “effects” as shorthand for the broad category that comprises both the effects and implementation of a decision on a non-mandatory bargaining subject. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 10 (Oakland).) Negotiations over implementation typically include proposed alternatives. (Id. at p. 11.) For instance, even though an employer has no duty to bargain over a decision to lay off employees, the California Supreme Court has noted that the scope of required effects bargaining includes “the timing of layoffs and the number and identity of the employees affected.” (Richmond Firefighters, supra, 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. (Oakland, supra, p. 11.) Effects bargaining violations are equally harmful as decision bargaining violations, as each disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations. In other words, the effects bargaining obligation is not an inferior duty. (Ibid.) (p. 22.)