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 2915H

View all topics for Decision 2915H

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

PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H.

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.) Negotiations over implementation may include negotiations over potential alternatives or revisions that may mitigate or offset the impact of the decision on employees, even though the decision itself is not bargainable. (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.” (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 265 & 276.) This means that even after an employer has decided to lay off a set number of bargaining unit employees in specific titles, a union has a right to propose alternatives during effects negotiations. As an example, the union may propose to lessen the number of bargaining unit layoffs and instead achieve desired labor cost savings by laying off non-bargaining unit employees, saving money on wages or benefits, or other similar proposals. (p. 15.)