EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000) – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

Single Topic for Decision 3010H

View all topics for Decision 3010H

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

An absolute refusal to meet and confer over a mandatory subject of bargaining is a “per se” violation. (Regents of the University of California (2021) PERB Decision No. 2783-H, p. 31.) Piecemeal bargaining, requiring that bargaining for a mandatory subject occur separately, “reduces the flexibility of collective bargaining and narrows the range of possible compromises by rigidly and unreasonably fragmenting negotiations. . . .” (City of Santa Rosa (2013) PERB Decision No. 2308-M, p. 5, citing NLRB precedent; accord County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, p. 22; Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee & California Superior Courts of Region 2 (2020) PERB Decision No. 2701-I, pp. 36-37; El Dorado County Superior Court (2017) PERB Decision No. 2523-C, p. 12.) PERB generally evaluates piecemeal or fragmented bargaining allegations as indicia of bad faith under the totality of conduct test. (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341, p. 37 (San Jose).) However, where such bargaining frustrates the bargaining process to a point that it would have the practical effect of a refusal to bargain, a per se violation exists. (Id. at pp. 38-39.)