EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES – Concealment/Misrepresentation

Single Topic for Decision 2958M

View all topics for Decision 2958M

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

The City engaged in bad faith bargaining when it repeatedly and preemptively stated that union’s job protection proposals would be ineligible for interest arbitration. These statements were misrepresentations and amounted to an unsupportable and unilaterally announced ground rule that frustrated negotiations by artificially separating job protection proposals from all the other issues under discussion. (Cf. County of Ventura (2021) PERB Decision No. 2758-M, pp. 36-37 [county’s material misrepresentation evidenced bad faith bargaining]; City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 40 [employer may not unilaterally establish ground rules]; City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, pp. 19-20 [insistence on fragmented or “piecemeal” bargaining evidences bad faith because it arbitrarily limits the range of possible compromises].) In these circumstances, PERB rejected the City’s claim that it engaged in lawful hard bargaining and instead concluded that the City bargained in bad faith in violation of MMBA section 3506.5(c). (Consolidated Irrigation District (2024) PERB Decision No. 2905-M, p. 28 [“hard bargaining” defense fails if the totality of the circumstances shows that respondent’s bargaining conduct manifested bad faith].) (p. 32.)