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PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd.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.

Effects bargaining analysis requires determination of whether the effects fall within the scope of bargaining. Reasonably foreseeable health or safety effects are bargainable. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 276-277 [where city faced a budget crisis and decided to lay off firefighters, it had no duty to bargain over that decision but had to bargain over effects such as the safety of remaining firefighters].) If “human health and safety are involved,” PERB must err on the side of finding a change is material enough to trigger bargaining even if it “will affect only a few employees.” (Solano County Employees’ Assn. v. County of Solano (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 256, 262 (Solano).) Solano held this is true even when management seeks to make the workplace safer, over the union’s objection. (Ibid.) The principle holds even more sway where it is the union that espouses the more cautious position. (pp. 16-17.)