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PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd.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

Where a decision on a non-mandatory topic has bargainable effects and the employer begins implementing its decision without providing clear notice regarding the nature and scope of the change, the employer has at that point violated its bargaining duty and the union generally has no duty to request bargaining. (County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, p. 30 (Santa Clara); see also Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 19 [union had no duty to bargain effects because employer had already begun implementing its decision].) An employer frustrates good faith negotiations if it begins implementation before bargaining. (Santa Clara, supra, p. 24 [bargaining “from a hole” is futile]; accord effects negotiations, before implementation begins. (Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 18; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 41.) (pp. 23-24.)