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PARTIALLY VACATED AND PARTIALLY SUPERSEDED ON OTHER GROUNDS BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd.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

Even where a decision involves a non-mandatory bargaining topic, if the decision has reasonably foreseeable effects on exclusively represented employees’ terms and conditions of employment, then the employer has a bargaining obligation regarding the decision’s effects and implementation. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 265 & 276; Regents of the University of California (2021) PERB Decision No. 2783-H, pp. 28-29.) Accordingly, if an employer reaches a firm decision on a matter outside the scope of representation and the decision has reasonably foreseeable effects on represented employees, then the employer typically must afford the exclusive representative notice and a meaningful opportunity to engage in 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, pp. 2, 17-19 & 28-42; County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, p. 30.) (pp. 14 & 22.)