EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS – Other

Single Topic for Decision 3054E

View all topics for Decision 3054E

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

A refusal to offer some explanation or substantiation for one’s position, where such information exists and has been requested, constitutes both an outright refusal to bargain and an indicator of bad faith under the totality of conduct test. (See County of San Luis Obispo (2015) PERB Decision No. 2427-M, p. 29 [noting that such conduct can amount to outright refusal to bargain]; see also City of Davis (2018) PERB Decision No. 2582-M, p. 19 [if “an argument is important enough to present in the give and take of bargaining, it is important enough to require some sort of proof of its accuracy,” internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; County of Tulare (2015) PERB Decision No. 2461-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 9 [“The obligation to bargain in good faith requires the parties to explain the reasons for a particular bargaining position with sufficient detail to permit the negotiating process to proceed on the basis of mutual understanding” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)]; City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 42 [allegation that employer refused to use substantive monetary figures when discussing its need for concessions indicated bad faith].) Board found that Alliance committed a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith when it repeatedly refused to provide an explanation for its governing board’s two-time rejection of tentative agreements, despite UTLA’s continued efforts to understand Alliance’s negotiation position. (pp. 24-26, 39)