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PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd.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

Faculty association presented sufficient evidence to show that student immunization policy had a reasonably foreseeable impact on faculty health and safety. Expert sources made clear why a student vaccine policy can have a reasonably foreseeable impact on faculty health. The policy change had the reasonably foreseeable result of reducing community immunity. Immunocompromised faculty or those faculty for whom a vaccine may be contraindicated rely heavily on community immunity. In effects bargaining, the parties might reach agreement on issues or policies, such as affording preference for virtual or hybrid teaching assignments to immunocompromised faculty, either at all times or in the event of a disease outbreak in a nearby community. Although faculty have individual rights to seek a reasonable accommodation, this argument favors the faculty association, as reasonable accommodation processes are part of a union’s scope of representation. (Sonoma County Superior Court (2017) PERB Decision No. 2532-C, p. 46, fn. 7; Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C, p. 22.) Moreover, even when parties are unable to reach agreement, there are benefits to bargaining over fraught issues. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2761-M, p. 69.) (pp. 17-22.)