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

Single Topic for Decision 2915Ha

View all topics for Decision 2915Ha

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

To conform PERB precedent to the court’s holding in Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90, that “an employer may satisfy its duty to seek clarification either ‘at the bargaining table’—that is, by formally meeting and conferring—or through an informal exchange between parties” (id. at p. 114), PERB clarified any contrary suggestions found in the following decisions: Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313, p. 12; City of Palo Alto (2017) PERB Decision No. 2388a-M, p. 34; and County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 27. The Board noted, however, that City of Palo Alto, supra, PERB Decision No. 2388a-M remains correct in holding that an employer cannot comply with its duty merely via comments at a public meeting of the employer’s governing board. (Id. at p. 34.) (p. 27 & fn. 10.)