EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION – In General

Single Topic for Decision 3034H

View all topics for Decision 3034H

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

A party responding to an information request must exercise the same diligence and thoroughness as it would in other business affairs of importance. (Imperial Irrigation District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2861-M, p. 46 (Imperial Irrigation); Butte-Glenn Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2834, p. 10 (Butte-Glenn); Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, pp. 8-9 (Sacramento).) An unreasonable delay in providing information constitutes as much of a violation as an outright refusal. (Imperial Irrigation, supra, p. 46; Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 20.) Moreover, an employer’s duty to provide information is not limited to information it owns; rather, it extends to all information that is available to it. (Regents of the University of California (2010) PERB Decision No. 2094-H, p. 26 [partially overruled on other grounds].) Thus, once a party receives a request for relevant information, it must either promptly and fully supply the information or timely and adequately explain its reasons for not doing so. (Butte-Glenn, supra, PERB Decision No. 2834, pp. 9-10; Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 8.) Where a union requests information that is relevant and necessary to its representational responsibilities, the employer’s unjustified failure to provide that information is a per se violation of its bargaining duty, and a charging party is not required to show harm or prejudice as part of its prima facie case. (Butte-Glenn, supra, pp. 9-10.) (pp. 8-9.)