All notes for Subtopic 1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2855E | The Accelerated Schools 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177 (Anaheim) outlines the general test for assessing whether a topic falls within EERA’s scope of representation. Under Anaheim, supra, PERB Decision No. 177, a topic falls within the scope of representation if it is a statutorily-enumerated subject of bargaining or, if: (1) it is logically and reasonably related to wages, hours or other statutorily enumerated subjects of bargaining; (2) it is of such concern to management and employees that conflict is likely to occur, and the mediatory influence of collective bargaining is an appropriate means for resolving such conflict; and (3) its designation as a negotiable subject would not significantly abridge the employer's freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) that are essential to achieving its mission. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) However, for certain recurring topics, PERB follows subject-specific standards that implement the overall scope of representation test. (City and County of San Francisco (2022) PERB Decision No. 2846-M, p. 18, fn. 15.) These standards promote consistency and predictability by obviating the need to “reinvent the wheel” and assess what types of facts are important each time a subcontracting or transfer of work case arises. (Id. at pp. 18-19, fn. 15.) Absent such consistent standards, an employer would not know in advance whether the law requires it to bargain a decision. (Ibid.) In layoff cases, the overarching rule is that an employer has a decision bargaining obligation when a layoff is inextricably linked to a bargainable subcontracting or transfer of work decision, and otherwise the employer has an effects bargaining obligation. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188 v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 273-274 & 277; Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608, 621-622; City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, p. 17, fn. 9; see also id. at p. 48.) Under Alum Rock Union Elementary School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 322, an employer must engage in decision bargaining if creation or abolition of classifications involves transfer of traditional bargaining unit duties without fundamental changes. (Id. at pp. 10-12.) (pp. 14-15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 139 | 03/17/23 |
| 2799M | County of Santa Clara 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The California Supreme Court has articulated a nuanced approach to applying MMBA section 3504. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 272-273 (Richmond Firefighters).) Under this framework, which PERB has adopted, “there are three distinct categories of managerial decisions, each with its own implications for the scope of representation: (1) decisions that have only an indirect and attenuated impact on the employment relationship and thus are not mandatory subjects of bargaining, such as advertising, product design, and financing; (2) decisions directly defining the employment relationship, such as wages, workplace rules, and the order of succession of layoffs and recalls, which are always mandatory subjects of bargaining; and (3) decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but nonetheless may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining because they involve a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise or, in other words, the employer’s retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment.” (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 18 (Orange), citing Richmond Firefighters, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 272-273, internal quotations omitted.) Decisions in the third category of managerial decisions—the closest cases---have “a direct impact on employment [even] though the decision is not in [itself] primarily about conditions of employment.” (Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623, 637, internal quotations and citations omitted (Claremont).) For such decisions, PERB balances the benefits of bargaining over the decision against the employer’s managerial interest in making the decision. (Richmond Firefighters, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 273; Claremont, supra, 39 Cal.4th 18 at p. 638; Building Material, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 660; Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 94 | 12/20/21 |
| 2803E | Oxnard Union High School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated In cases involving the MMBA, if there is no prior precedent determining whether a topic falls within the scope of representation, PERB and the California appellate courts apply the test set forth in County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, pp. 18-20 (Orange), and International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 272-273. PERB’s inquiry in such cases is fundamentally akin to its inquiry under Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177 (the scope of representation test applicable to EERA), as it considers the extent to which collective bargaining is likely to be valuable as well as the extent to which a bargaining obligation may limit management’s ability to act rapidly on an important managerial prerogative. (Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2594-M, pp. 18-20.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 110 | 01/26/22 |
| 2803E | Oxnard Union High School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The “scope of representation,” i.e. the group of mandatory bargaining topics under EERA, is “limited to matters relating to wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.” (EERA, § 3543.2, subd. (a)(1).) EERA provides that “matters not specifically enumerated are reserved to the public school employer.” (EERA, § 3543.2, subd. (a)(4).) However, the Legislature balanced this restrictive language with the expansive language noted above, which requires bargaining over “matters relating to wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.” (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 857-860.) The California Supreme Court, noting that these EERA provisions are in tension with one another and that the Legislature authorized PERB to apply its expertise to make close calls on matters that “relate to” employment terms and conditions, has specifically endorsed PERB’s three-part test for distinguishing between mandatory and non-mandatory bargaining topics. (Ibid.) Pursuant to that test, which the Board adopted in Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177 (Anaheim), an employer must bargain over a decision if: “(1) it is logically and reasonably related to hours, wages or an enumerated term and condition of employment, (2) the subject is of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur and the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is the appropriate means of resolving the conflict, and (3) the employer’s obligation to negotiate would not significantly abridge [its] freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of [its] mission.” (San Bernardino Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2599, p. 8, quoting Anaheim, supra, PERB Decision No. 177, pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 110 | 01/26/22 |
| 2854E | Antelope Valley Community College District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Under EERA, an employer must bargain over a decision if: “(1) it is logically and reasonably related to hours, wages or an enumerated term and condition of employment, (2) the subject is of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur and the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is the appropriate means of resolving the conflict, and (3) the employer’s obligation to negotiate would not significantly abridge [its] freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of [its] mission.” While instructors’ work calendar would ideally match students’ academic calendar, in reality that is not always true. Accordingly, PERB precedent applying the three-part test distinguishes between a calendar setting employee workdays and a calendar setting student instructional days, requiring bargaining over the former but not the latter. A calendar setting instructors’ workdays during the school year must be negotiated because the term “hours” encompasses not only work schedules and workdays, but also the distribution of workdays in a year. In contrast, a calendar that only sets instructional days for students falls outside the scope of representation. The decision whether to offer certain courses beyond the state’s minimum instructional requirements is also outside the scope of representation. An employer therefore may unilaterally decide to reduce, expand, or cancel classes held outside the regular school year, subject to a duty to bargain the effects of such a decision. (pp. 3-5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 125 | 02/23/23 |
| 2772Ma | County of Sonoma 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated In determining whether an employer’s decision is within the scope of representation under MMBA section 3504, the Board first determines into which of three categories of managerial decisions the decision falls: (1) decisions that have only an indirect and attenuated impact on the employment relationship and thus are not mandatory subjects of bargaining, such as advertising, product design, and financing; (2) decisions directly defining the employment relationship, such as wages, workplace rules, and the order of succession of layoffs and recalls, which are always mandatory subjects of bargaining; and (3) decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but nonetheless may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining because they involve a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise or, in other words, the employer’s retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment. “When a decision falls into the third category, we first determine whether the decision has ‘a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees’ that ‘arises from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision.’ If both requirements are met, we determine whether ‘the employer’s need for unencumbered decisionmaking in managing its operations is outweighed by the benefit to employer-employee relations of bargaining about the action in question.’”Here, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Board’s determination that the disputed Measure P amendments fell into the third category under this framework because the County has a substantial interest in increasing transparency and fostering community trust in policing and correctional services. Thus, the Board considered whether the decision to place the disputed Measure P amendments on the ballot had “a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees,” reviewing all relevant circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable employee. As to the first term, “significant” means “large or important enough to have an effect or to be noticed.” As to the second term, long-settled precedent holds that an employer action is adverse whenever a reasonable employee in the same circumstances “would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.” Finally, under the reasonable employee standard, the effect of a change need only be reasonably foreseeable to be considered “significant and adverse.” Applying these standards, the Board found that the disputed Measure P provisions significantly and adversely affect Association-represented employees’ working conditions by creating a second, independent investigatory path. (pp. 14-18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 127 | 02/28/23 |
| 2852H | Regents of the University of California 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Under HEERA, “[a] subject is within the scope of representation” “as a ‘term or condition of employment’” “if: (1) it involves the employment relationship, (2) it is of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur and the mediatory influence of collective bargaining is an appropriate means of resolving the conflict, and (3) the employer’s obligation to negotiate would not unduly abridge its freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of the employer’s mission.” Applying this test, the Board found that UC Santa Cruz’s decision to adopt a prohibition against concurrent appointments in FLSA exempt and non-exempt positions was within the scope of representation. (pp. 13-17.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 121 | 02/09/23 |
| 2846M | City and County of San Francisco 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The Board in Regents of the University of California (2021) PERB Decision No. 2783-H (Regents) held that a mandatory influenza vaccination policy issued before a COVID-19 vaccine was available was not within the scope of representation. That decision was based on the particular facts of that case and did not hold that mandatory vaccination policies are always outside the scope of representation. Also, the mandatory vaccination policy at issue in Regents was more than a mere work rule because it applied not only to employees but to “all individuals who work, live, or study on University premises.” Further, the circumstances may have changed significantly enough since the policy change in Regents to warrant a different conclusion on the scope of representation issue. The Board held that based on the facts alleged in the charge, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the union cannot overcome Regents. Rather, these arguable legal and factual disputes weigh in favor of issuing a complaint on the decision bargaining allegation because if there are one or more contested facts (or mixed questions of law and fact) that could affect the outcome, or there are contested, colorable legal theories, a complaint should issue, with the disputed issue(s) to be resolved at a formal hearing. (pp. 19-21.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 88 | 11/17/22 |
| 2819E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Cerritos Community College District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated A proposal that is outside the scope of representation for some employees is not outside scope for all employees to whom the proposal may apply. (p. 23, fn. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Cerritos Community College District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated EERA provides that “matters not specifically enumerated are reserved to the public school employer.” (§ 3543.2, subd. (a)(4).) However, the Legislature balanced this restrictive language by expansively requiring negotiations over “matters relating to wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.” (§ 3543.2, subd. (a)(1).) The California Supreme Court, noting that these EERA provisions are in tension with one another and that the Legislature authorized PERB to apply its expertise to determine which matters “relate to” employment terms and conditions, has specifically endorsed PERB’s three-part test for distinguishing between mandatory and non-mandatory bargaining subjects. (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 857-860 (San Mateo).) Pursuant to that test, which the Board adopted in Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177, an exclusive representative’s right to represent employees extends to a non-enumerated subject if: “(1) it is logically and reasonably related to hours, wages or an enumerated term and condition of employment, (2) the subject is of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur and the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is the appropriate means of resolving the conflict, and (3) the employer’s obligation to negotiate would not significantly abridge his freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of the [employer’s] mission.” (Id. at pp. 4-5; San Mateo, supra, 33 Cal.3d 850, 857-859.) (pp. 19-20.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2819E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Cerritos Community College District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated EERA requires a public school employer to meet and negotiate in good faith with an exclusive representative “with regard to matters within the scope of representation.” (§ 3543.3; see also §§ 3543.2, 3543.5, subd. (c).) EERA defines the “scope of representation” to include “matters relating to wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment,” and lists certain enumerated subjects as “terms and conditions of employment.” (§ 3543.2, subd. (a)(1).) Subjects within the scope of representation are known as “mandatory subjects of bargaining” (Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, p. 8, such that “parties to a collective bargaining relationship must meet and confer upon demand” over them. (Anaheim Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2504, p. 8.) The same obligation does not apply to subjects outside the scope of representation, which are called “non-mandatory” or “permissive” subjects. While parties may negotiate over such matters, neither party is required to do so. Although the District faults the ALJ for failing to distinguish between the scope of representation and the scope of bargaining, the ALJ did not err in using the exact term that EERA uses, “scope of representation,” to refer to mandatory subjects of bargaining, just as both parties did during their negotiations. (pp. 18-19.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2783H | Regents of the University of California 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The University issued the mandatory influenza vaccination policy because of grave concerns by its experts (as well as the California Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) that the 2020-2021 flu season, combined with the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, had the potential to overwhelm its hospitals due to the simultaneous spread of both respiratory illnesses. The implementation of the University’s influenza vaccination policy was a direct response to a potential confluence of the COVID-19 global pandemic and an outbreak of the influenza virus causing catastrophic outcomes and needless loss of life. This potential catastrophe affected not just University employees, but also its students and the general public who may have needed to use University hospitals. Under these unprecedented circumstances, requiring the University to negotiate the decision to require influenza vaccination would abridge its right to determine public health policy during a pandemic. (p. 25.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 38 | 07/26/21 |
| 2772M | County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * * 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated There are three distinct categories of managerial decisions, each with its own implications for the scope of representation. Regarding the third category, decisions that affect employment conditions but are not concerned primarily with employment, the Board must balance the benefits of bargaining over the decision against the employer’s managerial interest in making the decision. Aspects of a ballot measure that directly affect employment (e.g., investigating and disciplining employees) tend to fall on the negotiable side, unlike measures that relate primarily to public safety. Thus, decision bargaining is required for those amendments. (pp. 36-44.)The ballot measure’s creation of a parallel investigative scheme for peace officers was subject to decision bargaining because it related to investigation and discipline of employees. Other amendments in the measure were not subject to decision bargaining but were subject to effects bargaining because they impacted subjects within the scope of representation such as wages and safety. (pp. 39-40) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2663M | County of Orange 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Loss or diminution of opportunity is adverse in a scope of representation analysis even absent any immediate adverse effect on a particular employee. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 51 | 08/23/19 |
| 2663M | County of Orange 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated It is analytically unsound to consider public policy outcomes when determining whether a subject is within the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 51 | 08/23/19 |
| 2663M | County of Orange 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Decisions directly defining the employment relationship are mandatory subjects of bargaining and are not subject to Claremont balancing. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 51 | 08/23/19 |
| 2660S | State of California (Office of the Inspector General) 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated 100.01000: PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; OPERATION OF EERA, DILLS (SEERA), HEERA; In General The Dills Act declares as its purpose the improvement of employer-employee relations through recognition of “the right of state employees to join organizations of their own choosing and be represented by those organizations in their employment relations with the state.” However, the Act does not expressly define “state” and indeed it uses three different terms to refer to state management entities: “state employer,” “employer,” and “state.” Although by appearances similar, these terms address separate subjects and are not synonymous. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 48 | 08/15/19 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated In establishing an analytic framework for assessing whether a decision falls within the scope of representation, the California Supreme Court has explained that MMBA section 3504 was intended to incorporate federal precedent regarding the scope of representation under the NLRA and therefore has repeatedly looked to federal precedents. Specifically, the Court has repeatedly noted that it applies a framework initially deriving from the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis in First National Maintenance Corporation v. NLRB (1981) 452 U.S. 666, 676-680. Under this framework, there are three categories of managerial decisions, each with its own implications for the scope of representation: (1) “‘decisions that “have only an indirect and attenuated impact on the employment relationship” and thus are not mandatory subjects of bargaining,’ such as advertising, product design, and financing; (2) ‘decisions directly defining the employment relationship, such as wages, workplace rules, and the order of succession of layoffs and recalls,’ which are ‘always mandatory subjects of bargaining’; and (3) ‘decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but nonetheless may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining because they involve “a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise” or, in other words, the employer’s “retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment.’” (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 18, citing International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. PERB (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 272-273. In the closest cases—the third category of managerial decisions—PERB applies a balancing test, under which bargaining is required only if “the benefit, for labor-management relations and the collective-bargaining process, outweighs the burden placed on the conduct of the business.” (County of Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 18, quoting Richmond Firefighters, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 273 and First National Maintenance, supra, 452 U.S. at p. 679.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2659M | County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated In determining whether a matter is within the scope of representation, the Board applies a framework initially deriving from the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis in First National Maintenance Corporation v. NLRB (1981) 452 U.S. 666, 676-680 (First National Maintenance) and Richmond Firefighters. Under First National Maintenance, there are three categories of managerial decisions, each with its own implications for the scope of representation: (1) “‘decisions that “have only an indirect and attenuated impact on the employment relationship” and thus are not mandatory subjects of bargaining,’ such as advertising, product design, and financing; (2) ‘decisions directly defining the employment relationship, such as wages, workplace rules, and the order of succession of layoffs and recalls,’ which are ‘always mandatory subjects of bargaining’; and (3) ‘decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but nonetheless may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining because they involve “a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise” or, in other words, the employer’s “retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment.’” (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 18, citing Richmond Firefighters, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 272-273.) In the closest cases—the third category of managerial decisions—PERB applies a balancing test, under which bargaining is required only if “the benefit, for labor-management relations and the collective-bargaining process, outweighs the burden placed on the conduct of the business.” (County of Orange, supra, PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 18, quoting Richmond Firefighters, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 273 and First National Maintenance, supra, 452 U.S. at p. 679.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 40 | 08/06/19 |
| 2599E | San Bernardino Community College District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177, not Claremont Police Officers Association v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623, supplies the test for subjects not specifically enumerated as within scope under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 85 | 12/05/18 |
| 2594M | County of Orange 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The three-step balancing test from Claremont Police Officers Association v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623 applies “to determine whether management must meet and confer with a recognized employee organization . . . when the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision significantly and adversely affects a bargaining unit’s wages, hours, or working conditions.” It does not apply, however, to managerial decisions that directly define the employment relationship, which are always negotiable. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 73 | 11/06/18 |
| 2518E | Los Angeles Unified School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Evaluation system, including evaluation criteria, is negotiable under the Anaheim test. The requirements of the Stull Act (Education Code section 44660 et seq.) do not remove evaluation criteria from the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 146 | 03/06/17 |
| 2504E | Anaheim Union High School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 80 | 10/14/16 |
| 2388Ma | City of Palo Alto 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Although interest arbitration is not within the scope of representation under MMBA section 3504, the adoption of rules and regulations concerning either interest arbitration or mediation or both, falls squarely within the public agency’s duty, established by MMBA section 3507, to consult in good faith. Section 3507 prescribes a different scope of consultation from that under section 3505, because in section 3507, the Legislature stated with particularity those subjects for consultation. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 162 | 04/10/17 |
| 2427M | County of San Luis Obispo 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated A “calcification of working conditions” is contrary to the principles of collective bargaining and will only be entertained upon “clear and unmistakable” evidence that a public agency intended to grant employees private rights of a contractual nature that survive and effectively supersede future collective bargaining obligations. Where pension plan provisions relied on by the unions did not confer an absolute right to “permanency” in the particular benefits or contributions formulas, unions failed to show that changes to employee pension contribution formulas were “vested rights” beyond the scope of mandatory bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 176 | 06/03/15 |
| 2394C | Santa Clara County Superior Court 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The Legislature modified the scope of bargaining by absolving the Court of the duty to bargain over the decision to impose furloughs when it enacted Government Code section 68106. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 56 | 10/20/14 |
| 2298M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The MMBA imposes on employers a duty to meet and confer regarding matters within the scope of representation, which does not include managerial decisions such as a decision to lay off employees. Thus, the MMBA imposes a duty to meet and confer over the implementation and the impacts and effects of a layoff decision, but not the decision itself. The obligation to maintain the status quo on matters within the scope of representation following certification of a successor organization, attaches only to those matters which are mandatory subjects. Including an agreement on a non-mandatory subject within a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) does not convert the non-mandatory subject into a mandatory subject. Nor does an agreement regarding a non-mandatory subject become part of the “status quo” which an employer must maintain while meeting and conferring for a successor MOU. Once an employer makes a layoff decision, the employer is obliged to notify the organization representing employees of the decision and to meet and confer in good faith, upon request, regarding the reasonably foreseeable impacts and effects of the layoff decision. Where an employer believes a matter to be outside the scope of mandatory meeting and conferring, it is obliged to explore the matter in meet and confer discussions. Thereupon, the employer may change its position and meet and confer on the matter, or it may continue to assert its prior position and decline to meet and confer. In the latter case, if the employer is incorrect, its refusal to meet and confer is unlawful. The hospital’s refusal to meet and confer, at least on safety and workload issues, was absolute and thus unlawful. (City of Richmond (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259; Sierra Joint Community College District (1981) PERB Decision No. 179.) more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 137 | 12/20/12 |
| 2300H | Regents of the University of California 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated A subject is within the scope of representation if: (1) it involves the employment relationship; (2) is of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur and the mediatory influence of collective bargaining is an appropriate means of resolving the conflict; and (3) the employer's obligation to negotiate would not unduly abridge its freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of the employer's mission. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 141 | 12/20/12 |
| 2296M | City of Long Beach 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Both wages and hours are expressly included within the scope of representation under the MMBA. Thus, because the imposition of furloughs clearly affects both wages and hours of work, it is within the scope of representation, unless an exception or defense applies. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 130 | 12/04/12 |
| 2296M | City of Long Beach 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Both wages and hours are expressly included within the scope of representation under the MMBA. Thus, because the imposition of furloughs clearly affects both wages and hours of work, it is within the scope of representation, unless an exception or defense applies. Provision in local civil service rules authorizing county to reduce work hours for reasons of economy or due to a lack of work or funds does not exempt employer from obligation to meet and confer under the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 130 | 12/04/12 |
| 2234S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated To prevail on a transfer of work theory, the charging party must establish as a threshold matter that its bargaining unit had previously and exclusively performed the duties at issue. Where unit and non-unit employees traditionally have performed overlapping duties, the employer does not violate its duty to negotiate in good faith merely by increasing the quantity of work that non-unit employees perform and decreasing the quantity of work that unit employees perform. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 114 | 01/31/12 |
| 2218E | Pasadena Area Community College District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Decision to cancel winter intersession classes was outside scope of representation. No violation of duty to bargain effects, where no demand to bargain negotiable effects of decision was ever made. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 80 | 11/09/11 |
| 2139M | City of Alhambra * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2663-M and County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, where the Board overruled the decision’s interpretation of the scope of representation test, and County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2663-M, where the Board overruled the remainder of the decision as to its specific application of the scope of representation test to promotional opportunities, including procedures. * * *Three-part test established in Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623 applies to determine whether a matter is within the scope of representation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act: (1) Does the management action have a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees. If not, there is no duty to meet and confer. (2) Does the significant and adverse effect arise from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision. If not, then the meet and confer requirement applies. (3) If both factors are present, the Board applies a balancing test. The action is within the scope of representation only if the employer’s need for unencumbered decisionmaking in managing its operations is outweighed by the benefit to employer-employee relations of bargaining about the action in question. Modification of class specification to expand the pool of eligible candidates for fire captain position to include current employees who are already performing the duties covered by the designated certifications had no significant or adverse impact on the working conditions of bargaining unit employees, where modification imposed no new eligibility requirements, did not grant any preference to current fire engineers, and did not affect the opportunity of candidates with certificates to compete for and obtain fire captain positions. The determination of minimum qualifications in this case had an effect on public services and was a fundamental managerial or policy decision. Furthermore, there is no evidence that bargaining over the expansion of the candidate pool for fire captains would outweigh the City’s need to determine the qualifications necessary to provide public fire protection services to its citizens. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 160 | 10/26/10 |
| 2120M | County of Santa Clara 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Interest arbitration provisions are not within the scope of representation under the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 109 | 06/25/10 |
| 2120M | County of Santa Clara 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Prevailing wage provisions that establish wages (as opposed to those that merely establish an initial bargaining position) are within the scope of representation under the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 109 | 06/25/10 |
| 2114M | County of Santa Clara 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Interest arbitration provisions are not within the scope of representation under the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 97 | 06/08/10 |
| 2114M | County of Santa Clara 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Prevailing wage provisions that establish wages (as opposed to those that merely establish an initial bargaining position) are within the scope of representation under the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 97 | 06/08/10 |
| 1876Ha | Trustees of the California State University 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated In determining if non-enumerated matters fall within the scope of representation as a “term or condition of employment,” PERB applies a three-part test. A subject is within the scope of representation if: (a) it involves the employment relationship; (b) the subject is of such concern to management and employees that conflict is likely to occur, and the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is the appropriate means of resolving the conflict; and (c) the employer’s obligation to negotiate would not significantly abridge its freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of the employers mission. PERB has indicated a matter is outside the scope of bargaining if “imposing a bargaining obligation would significantly abridge the employer’s managerial prerogatives.” more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 73 | 04/15/09 |
| 1876Ha | Trustees of the California State University 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The University’s decision to prohibit faculty and staff from parking in newly built parking structures was not within the scope of representation under HEERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 73 | 04/15/09 |
| 2112I | Los Angeles Superior Court 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The charge failed to state a prima facie case for unlawful unilateral change, where the alleged changes were outside the scope of representation. Union alleged the employer made changes in practice by eliminating nine regular court interpreter assignments and leaving vacancies in daily as-needed assignments unfilled. The Court Interpreter Act specifically provides that the “delivery of court services” is outside the scope of representation, and the Board has held that an employer’s determination of staff or service levels is not within the scope of representation. A matter outside scope does not become a mandatory subject of bargaining because the parties negotiate over it or even reach an agreement. Charge fails to establish a prima facie case where the charge merely states that the employer made staffing decisions based on unlawful animus and not legitimate business reasons. A charging party has the burden to allege the “who, what, when, where and how” of an unfair practice. Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 94 | 06/07/10 |
| 2094H | Regents of the University of California * * * OVERRULED IN PART by amendment to HEERA section 3563.3, Stats. 2011, Ch. 539 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Stats. 2011, ch. 539 (S.B. 857), § 4. * * *Nurse-to-patient staffing ratios relate to the workload of individual nurses on a particular shift. Proposal to incorporate state regulations setting minimum nurse-to-patient staffing ratios into collective bargaining agreement was within scope of representation because proposed provision merely reiterated employer’s obligations under law and allowed employee organization to enforce ratios through arbitration. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 41 | 02/02/10 |
| 2048E | San Francisco Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313-E 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313-E. * * *Employees’ reporting location is not within the scope of representation under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 123 | 06/30/09 |
| 1942C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M. * * *In order to fall within Trial Court Act section 71634(b)’s list of decisions excluded from the scope of representation, the decision must not only be one which reasonably falls within one of the excluded categories, but the reason for the decision must be for the purpose of carrying out the unique and special responsibilities of the trial courts. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 38 | 01/31/08 |
| 1926H | Trustees of the California State University 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The decision to implement a computer policy is within CSU’s exercise of managerial prerogative because computer policies are necessary for CSU to provide its educational mission. “Computing resources support virtually every facet of [CSU’s] operations, including student admissions, registration, advisement, instruction, health care services, library services, research, communications, fund-raising, business and finance, plant operations, human resources, and public safety.” Additionally, computer networks are constantly under attack from viruses and worms which have the potential to take down an entire computer network thereby preventing CSU from providing its educational mission. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 152 | 10/31/07 |
| 1910M | County of Ventura 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The County unilaterally changed a negotiated policy of the parties' memorandum of agreement which addresses grievance processing, without providing the Association with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain, when it failed to process a grievance filed by the Association. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 114 | 06/21/07 |
| 1900M | Sutter County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The effects of the criminal background check in this case that primarily relate to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment, are within the scope of bargaining. The effects of the criminal background check in this case that primarily relate to the quality and nature of public services, are outside the scope of bargaining based upon the managerial prerogative. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 92 | 04/25/07 |
| 1895E | Newark Unified School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated A pre-paid legal services plan relates to an enumerated subject under Gov. Code Section 3543.2, and therefore the Board need not analyze whether pre-paid legal services are akin to insurance. Although the pre-paid legal services plan was negotiable, the District did not unilaterally implement the program, because the program did not have a generalized and continued impact on the bargaining unit. The Association's proposal regarding the make up and dissemination of the STAR results is not negotiable and impinged upon managerial rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 78 | 03/27/07 |
| 1863E | El Centro Elementary School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated A permissive subject is not transformed into a mandatory subject solely on the basis that it is incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, it is not an unfair practice for an employer to repudiate a contractual provision containing a permissive subject of bargaining because the employer does not have a duty under EERA to negotiate that term. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 10 | 11/13/06 |
| 1849M | County of Santa Cruz 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Association did not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the County actually contracted out bargaining unit work. The union presented documentation that County approved money to contract with physicians, but charge did not indicate whether any physicians were actually hired. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 151 | 08/16/06 |
| 1842H | Trustees of the California State University 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated A change is not rendered non-negotiable because it arguably benefited employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 125 | 05/18/06 |
| 1775E | Standard School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated PAR is within the scope of representation under EERA section 3543.2(a) and the Anaheim test in that it is logically and reasonably related to the terms and conditions of employment. (1) A local PAR program is logically and reasonably related to evaluation procedures. (2) The Legislature required a school District to negotiate the development and implementation of a local PAR Program. (3) Negotiating a local PAR program would not significantly intrude upon a union’s managerial prerogative; pp. 11-12, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 162 | 08/26/05 |
| 1656H | Trustees of the California State University 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Policies that protected employees from unlawful discrimination are within the scope of representation. However, a policy that applies only to students and non-represented employees is not within scope, unless the employee performance is affected – such as placing a complaint in an employee’s personnel file. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 197 | 07/08/04 |
| 1568E | Long Beach Community College District * * * OVERRULED by Long Beach Community College District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1941 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Long Beach Community College District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1941. * * *It is the Association’s knowledge that the District intended to unilaterally contract out work that triggers the statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 33 | 12/18/03 |
| 1608M | City and County of San Francisco 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated There is no obligation on either party to negotiate over permissive subjects of bargaining. However, once an agreement is reached regarding a permissive subject and it is embodied in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, the parties are bound to that agreement for its duration. Once the agreement expires there is no obligation to adhere to the agreement or bargain a new one. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 139 | 03/22/04 |
| 1507H | Trustees of the California State University 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Under the Anaheim test, CSU’s computer usage policies established new grounds for discipline against employees who violate their provisions and so are within the scope of representation. Such policies are subject to negotiation both as to the criteria for discipline and as to the procedure to be followed. CSU’s computer usage policies affect matters within the scope of representation as they pertain to APC’s use of CSU e-mail to communicate with employees. Computer resources, telephones and fax machines comprise “reasonable” means of access in a large academic institution and reasonable access rights are negotiable. Govt. Code section 8314 does not prohibit personal use of computer, telephone and fax equipment; rather, it prohibits use for personal purposes but excludes from that prohibition occasional, incidental or minimal use for personal purposes. Although portions of the policies may concern matters within management prerogative, other issues, involving the ill-defined criteria for discipline, internal monitoring of employee e-mail, and training employees to comply with copyright and other licensing restrictions, clearly are negotiable items. The absence of Educ. Code section 89535 from HEERA 3572.5 does not preclude the parties from negotiating forms and bases for discipline not included within section 89535, provided that the subject is related to wages, hours or other negotiable terms and conditions of employment. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 26 | 01/08/03 |
| 1451H | Trustees of the California State University 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Under HEERA, the phrase "terms and conditions of employment" is interpreted the way the Board interprets it under the Ralph C. Dills Act. As such, private sector precedents regarding the scope of representation under the NLRA are also applicable to HEERA cases. Under HEERA, a matter is within the scope of representation as concerning "terms and conditions of employment" if (1) it involves the employment relationship, (2) is of such concern to both management and labor that conflict is likely to occur and the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is an appropriate means of resolving the conflict, and (3) the employer's obligation to negotiate would not unduly abridge its freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of the employer's mission. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32091 | 06/25/01 |
| A082E | Jefferson School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Since PERB does not render advisory opinions, Board designation of the parameters of the duty to negotiate can be obtained only by a party's refusal to discuss disputed items; p. 13. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11032 | 03/07/80 |
| 1163E | Arcata Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525. * * *Employer decisions involving the level of services to be provided fall within the management prerogative. These decisions include the creation of new positions, determining the number of hours assigned to new positions, discontinuing a service by abolishing a position and laying off employees; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27120 | 06/26/96 |
| 1092E | Marin Community College District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Negotiating about salary step placement of former managers was found not to impact the District's ability to run its school and thus did not violate the third prong of the Anaheim test; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26070 | 03/21/95 |
| 0955E | Eureka City School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The district's smoking policy fails to satisfy the Anaheim test establishing that it is not a mandatory subject of bargaining within the scope of representation; p. 14. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23168 | 10/27/92 |
| 0903E | Baldwin Park Unified School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Board expressly rejects reliance on modified Anaheim test to determine whether matter is a mandatory subject of bargaining; pp. 6-9. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22155 | 09/24/91 |
| 0798E | Compton Community College District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Although student grievance policy not a specifically enumerated subject of bargaining, under Anaheim test, Board found it was negotiable; pp. 23-24, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21079 | 03/22/90 |
| 0723E | San Bernardino City Unified School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated It is the burden of the charging party to show that a negotiable matter is within scope; p. 6, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20060 | 03/03/89 |
| 0688Eb | San Francisco Community College District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated The exclusive representative of the classified employees has no right to bargain over subject related to certificated staff. SEIU had alleged that the District had unilaterally, without negotiations, adopted a policy barring classified personnel who worked in the District from also serving as certificated employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21025 | 12/20/89 |
| 0556E | Stanislaus County Department of Education 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Negotiations over ending operation of migrant child education program would significantly abridge managerial prerogatives. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17039 | 12/31/85 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated By enacting EERA section 3549.1, the Legislature intended that negotiations would be attended only by the parties’ representatives, absent an agreement or established practice to the contrary. To the extent a public school employer insists on a policy of excluding employee observers from negotiations, it was simply following the statutory default rule for negotiations, and not unlawfully refusing to meet and negotiate. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 23 | 06/30/16 |
| 1948E | San Francisco Unified School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated With regard to school district employees, EERA preempts contrary local impasse resolution procedures, including the binding interest arbitration procedure in the City of San Francisco Charter. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 58 | 03/13/08 |
| 0431S | State of California (Agricultural Labor Relations Board) (Cauchon, et al.) 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Section 3516 provison precluding negotiations over the "merits necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order" was meant to forestall expansion of negotiable subjects into managerial policy. R.A. dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15216 | 11/13/84 |
| 0361S | State of California (Department of Transportation) 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated First case to rule on meaning of scope language of SEERA and provide statement of test for determining whether subject within scope. Matters are within scope if they involve employment relationship and are of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur, and if mediatory influence of collective negotiations is an appropriate means of resolving conflict; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14295 | 11/28/83 |
| 0333S | State of California (Department of Transportation) 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated In light of virtually identical scope language of Dills and NLRA, PERB holds private sector precedent regarding scope to be applicable to Dills cases. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14225 | 08/18/83 |
| 0322E | Alum Rock Union Elementary School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Cites Anaheim test. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14184 | 06/27/83 |
| 0265E | Calexico Unified School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Proposals which are otherwise negotiable are within scope unless a conflicting Education Code provision precludes variance from its terms; section 45038 et seq., of the Education Code do not preclude negotiations over lump-sum salary payments. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14016 | 12/20/82 |
| 0266E | Brawley Union High School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Where a provision of the Education Code requires a certain action, the parties are prohibited from negotiating a provision which directly conflicts with the statutory requirement; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14020 | 12/21/82 |
| 0255E | San Bernardino City Unified School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Negotiability of a proposal is not precluded by the Education Code, so long as the proposal does not directly conflict with the Code; pp. 8-9 Unless language in the Education Code clearly evidences an intent to set an inflexible standard or insure immutable provisions, the negotiability of a proposal is not precluded; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13249 | 10/29/82 |
| 0177E | Anaheim Union High School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated A subject is negotiable, even though not specifically enumerated, if (1) it is logically and reasonably related to hours, wages or an enumerated term and condition of employment, (2) the subject is of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur and the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is the appropriate means of resolving the conflict, and (3) the employer's obligation to negotiate would not significantly abridge his freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of the district's mission. more or view all topics or full text. | 5 | 12148 | 10/28/81 |
| 0999S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated In matters involving the fundamental employment relationship, the unique status of the Dills Act as a supersession statute mandates that great deference be given to the rights of employees and their exclusive representatives; p. 16. The Dills Act provides the state employer and an exclusive representative with the authority to supersede specified statutory provisions relating to the employment relationship by agreeing to memorandum of understanding provisions which differ from the specified statutory provisions; p. 17. By designating specific sections of the Government Code as supersedable, the Legislature has provided clear direction of its intent to ensure that the subjects of those sections are appropriate subjects of collective bargaining within the scope of representation; p. 17. subjects of collective bargaining within the scope of representation; p. 17. bargaining within the scope of representation; p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24112 | 06/22/93 |
| 0129E | San Mateo City School District * * * ANNULLED by San Mateo City School District v. PERB (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, and REPLACED by Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 375 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Annulled By San Mateo City School District v. PERB (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 850; REPLACED By Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 375 more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11092 | 05/20/80 |
| 0132E | Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District ANNULLED by San Mateo City School District v. PERB (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, and REPLACED by Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 375 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Annulled By San Mateo City School District v. PERB (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 850; Replaced By Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 375. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11112 | 06/19/80 |
| 0133E | Jefferson School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Questionable scope analysis in light of San Mateo v. PERB (1983) 33 Cal 3d 850. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11117 | 06/19/80 |
| 0096E | Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District/Pleasant Valley School District 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Questionable analysis in light of San Mateo v. PERB (1983) 33 Cal 3d 850. In a lead opinion, not joined by another member, one member held that EERA did not permit permissive subjects of bargaining, only mandatory or prohibited; pp. 12-29. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10097 | 07/16/79 |
| 0928S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39) 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Board summarily affirms dismissal of charge that DPA violated 3516.5, and 3519(a), (b), and (c) of Dills by failing to give notice and opportunity to bargain to unions before proposing an initiative to the Attorney General or people of the state which would allow the Governor, in state of fiscal emergency, to furlough or reduce salaries of state employees. Matters at issue found not to be within the scope of representation because: (1) the mediatory influence of collective bargaining is not suited to the resolution of this conflict; and (2) such obligation would unduly abridge employers' freedom to exercise managerial prerogative. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23063 | 04/20/92 |
| 0927S | State of California (Governor Pete Wilson) (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges; Professional Engineers in California Government; California Association of Professional Scientists) 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Board summarily affirms dismissal of charge that Governor violated 3516.5, and 3519(b) and (c) of Dills by failing to give notice and opportunity to bargain to unions before proposing an initiative which would allow him, in state of fiscal emergency, to furlough or reduce salaries of state employees, to the Attorney General or people of the State. Matters at issue found not to be within the scope of representation because: (1) the mediatory influence of collective bargaining is not suited to the resolution of this conflict; and (2) such obligation would unduly abridge employers' freedom to exercise managerial prerogative. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23061 | 04/13/92 |