All notes for Subtopic 1000.02076 – Lay-Offs

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2684E Modoc County Office of Education
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
An employer’s decision to lay off employees is not a matter within the scope of representation, and only the effects of the layoff decision are negotiable. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.
11/27/19
2504E Anaheim Union High School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
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.
418010/14/16
2433M Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
The decision to lay off is non-negotiable, because it is within the employer’s managerial prerogatives. However, the effects of the layoff are negotiable. An employer may select the layoff date as an initial matter and present it to the union as its proposal for the timing of the layoff. Negotiations over the effects of layoff may include the exclusive representative’s robust efforts to persuade the employer that layoffs can be avoided. Those efforts may include economic concessions, or other ideas for cost-savings, or the presentation of facts that demonstrate the layoff is not necessary or need not be as deep as management proposes. However, if an exclusive representative expects to successfully establish that an employer failed to negotiate in good faith over the effects and implementation of layoffs, the exclusive representative must participate in the give-and-take of negotiable proposals, i.e., the effects and implementation of the layoff. The union cannot monopolize negotiations with its insistence on negotiating over a non-negotiable managerial decision, i.e., the decision to lay off, and hope to delay or prevent the implementation of those layoffs by charging the employer with bad faith bargaining. An exclusive representative faced with impending layoffs of unit members may choose not to offer economic concessions in trade for fewer layoffs. But where a layoff is undertaken to reduce labor costs, a union cannot claim that the employer refused to bargain over the number of employees to be laid off when the union offers no concessions of sufficient value to the employer to obviate the need for layoffs. While a union is not obligated to propose economic concessions in order to obviate the need for the layoff or to mitigate the severity of the layoff, if it chooses to offer concessions, our case law holds that such proposed alternatives to layoff are appropriate matters for negotiations. A union may not challenge an employer for failing to combine negotiations for a successor memorandum of agreement with layoff effects negotiations, when the union fails to respond to an invitation to open successor negotiations until after the layoff occurs. A hospital does not engage in piecemeal, fragmented or conditional bargaining by refusing a union’s request to combine negotiations over effects of layoff with successor MOU negotiations, when the Hospital does not condition successor MOU negotiations on an agreement regarding layoff effects, and when negotiations over both matters continue after the layoffs are implemented. Union’s assertion that a hospital resisted engaging union in discussions to rebut union’s assertions that layoffs were unnecessary is tantamount to a claim of a right to negotiate the decision to lay off. more or view all topics or full text.
40406/15/15
2394C Santa Clara County Superior Court
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
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.
395610/20/14
2385E Bellflower Unified School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
The decision to close a facility or to lay off employees is not subject to bargaining, but the effects of that decision on matters within the scope of representation are negotiable. Even if the classified positions to be abolished by the action taken at the school board meeting did not result in layoffs, reductions in work hours, reductions in pay, or the closing of the school site, the District was still required to meet with the union to seek clarification. more or view all topics or full text.
391706/30/14
2298M Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Under the MMBA, a decision to lay off employees is generally managerial prerogative as to which the employer has no duty to meet and confer with the employees’ union over the decision itself. 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. Having reached a firm decision, driven by labor cost considerations, to lay off employees, an MMBA employer must meet and confer, upon request, with the union representing the employees, both as to the implementation (including the timing, and the number and identity of employees to be laid off) and as to the effects of the layoff on the remaining employees, including post-layoff workload and safety conditions of remaining employees. Thus, where a layoff is driven by labor cost considerations, an employer must meet and confer in good faith, upon request, over the implementation and the reasonably foreseeable impacts and effects on remaining employees. Meeting and conferring on the implementation and effects of a non-negotiable layoff decision should commence early enough to reach completion, including resolution of an impasse, prior to implementation of the decision. Only under certain circumstances may an employer implement a non-negotiable layoff decision prior to completing the meet and confer process. Implementation permissible prior to completing meet and confer where: (1) the layoff implementation date was not arbitrary but based on an immutable externally-established deadline, or on an important managerial interest such that delay beyond the chosen date would undermine the employer’s right to make the decision to lay off; (2) the employer gave notice of the layoff decision and implementation date sufficiently in advance of the implementation date to allow for meaningful meeting and conferring prior to the implementation; and (3) the employer met and conferred in good faith on implementation and effects prior to the implementation, and thereafter as to those subjects not resolved by virtue of the implementation. 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. It is undisputed that the hospital’s layoff decision was driven by labor cost considerations. Thus, the implementation (timing of the layoff, and the number and identity of employees to be laid off) and the impact and effects on remaining employees, including workload and safety, were mandatory subjects for meeting and conferring prior to the implementation of the layoff. (City of Richmond (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259.) An employer may implement a non-negotiable layoff decision prior to completing its meet and confer obligations as to the effects of the layoff only under certain conditions, including the condition that it meet and confer in good faith over those matters that are mandatory subjects for meeting and conferring. more or view all topics or full text.
12/20/12
2351M City of Sacramento
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
The effects of a decision to eliminate a position and lay off employees are negotiable. more or view all topics or full text.
3810412/24/13
2115S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of Personnel Administration)
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Charge failed to state facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of refusal to bargain over the area of layoff related to the closure of two juvenile facilities. By giving notice more than four months before the planned implementation date, the State afforded the union ample opportunity to negotiate over the effects of the layoff, including the area of layoff. Implementation of the nonnegotiable decision to lay off employees prior to the completion of negotiations over the effects of the layoff is permissible where the decision to implement was not arbitrary, the employer gave sufficient notice of the implementation date to provide for meaningful negotiation, and the employer continues to negotiate in good faith. more or view all topics or full text.
349906/10/10
1839H Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority (2019) PERB Decision No. 2659-M
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
There is no duty to bargain where Respondent did not transfer bargaining unit work out of the unit or substitute one group of employees for another. There was no evidence that any unit employees ever performed work at that campus. That some student housing services at other campuses were performed by bargaining unit employees does not of itself mandate that housing services be performed by bargaining at this campus. more or view all topics or full text.
3011805/12/06
1720M City of Richmond * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Under MMBA, a decision to layoff employees is not within the scope of representation. The effects of a layoff, however, are negotiable. A request to negotiate over the effects of a layoff must be specific and identify the negotiable areas of impact. more or view all topics or full text.
293112/13/04

1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Employees layoff did not fall within the category of practical consequences which management decisions have on wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment, therefore provision of MOU covering such matters did not apply. more or view all topics or full text.

1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Diminution of bargaining unit positions is a compelling reason for requiring the employer to meet and confer before arranging to transfer work away from the bargaining unit. City's unilateral reorganization which deleted three bargaining unit positions at a city hospital and reclassified the positions as new positions at lower pay in different classifications outside the bargaining unit had a significant effect on the wages, hours and other terms of conditions of employment and was a matter within the scope of representation violated 3504.5 and 3505 of the MMBA. Permanent transfer of work away from a bargaining unit often has a significant effect on the wages, hours, and working conditions of bargaining unit employees. The employer is required to bargain only if the work transfer adversely affects the bargaining unit. It is clear a bargaining unit is adversely affected when a work transfer results in layoffs or the failure to rehire bargaining unit workers who would otherwise be rehired. more or view all topics or full text.

1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
lay off decisions not subject to negotiations but to the extent the decision affect workload and safety, is negotiable. more or view all topics or full text.
1189H Regents of the University of California (Woods, et al.)
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Decision to lay off is a matter of fundamental managerial concern and is within the University's discretionary prerogative; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
212806603/19/97
0648S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
As under the EERA, the legislature intended that, under the Dills Act, decisions to lay off remain exclusively with the employer. The employer did not have to bargain over a proposal to limit the reason for layoffs to lack of work or funds and to require consultation with the union over the reasons for a layoff. more or view all topics or full text.
132001312/18/87
0595E Placentia Unified School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Duty to bargain effects remained despite contractual provision providing for layoffs. more or view all topics or full text.
101718111/04/86
0540E Oakland Unified School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Where the time frame between decision and implementation provides "ample opportunity" for good faith negotiation, no per se violation by passage of resolution adopting decision to layoff and reduction in hours. more or view all topics or full text.
101700912/12/85
1955H Trustees of the California State University (San Diego)
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
The employer did not unlawfully contract out work when its decision to discontinue staffing remedial mathematics and writing classes was made independent of its decision to contract with a third party to teach these classes. more or view all topics or full text.
327404/24/08
0383E San Mateo City School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Proposal on layoff and reemployment generally negotiable, except that those provisions which would establish a definition of "lack of funds" and impose a deadline for layoffs to end of academic year and limiting notice conflict with Education Code 45117 and are to that extent nonnegotiable; pp. 14-23. more or view all topics or full text.
81508104/30/84
0375E Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Remedy for improper layoff tied to employee's lost salary and benefits negotiable; p. 67. Decision to layoff is managerial prerogative; management is obligated to negotiate the effects; p. 53. Proposal seeking to restrict layoffs to end of academic year impinged on management's express statutory authority under Education Code section 45117. more or view all topics or full text.
81502101/05/84
0372E Kern Community College District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Effect of layoff within scope of representation, and employer is obligated to negotiate those effects upon request. more or view all topics or full text.
81501612/29/83
0373E Mt. Diablo Unified School District  * * * REVERSED IN PART BY Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Decision to lay off certificated employees is a managerial prerogative but management is obligated to negotiate the effects of its decision; p. 20. As association proposal concerning same-date-of-hire criteria found outside scope of representation, district's refusal to negotiate that portion of layoff proposal was not a violation of EERA; p. 45. more or view all topics or full text.
81501712/30/83
0343E South San Francisco Unified School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Employer violates duty to bargain in good faith when refuses to bargain effects of layoff. more or view all topics or full text.
71424309/02/83
0337E Kern Community College District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Board's adoption of resolution eliminating services not unlawful per se. Nor is decision to lay off eight persons. Method of layoff identification and notice given is non-negotiable; p. 12. Distribution of layoff notices is not refusal to negotiate; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text.
71422908/19/83
0326E Oakland Unified School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Decision to lay off is non-negotiable; p. 30. more or view all topics or full text.
71419507/11/83
0318E Pittsburg Unified School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Employer's reduction in work year (12 to 10 months) of clerical employees is within scope and not permitted by layoff sections of Education Code. more or view all topics or full text.
71417606/10/83
0193E North Sacramento School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Effects of lay-offs are within scope of representation; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text.
61302612/31/81
0178E Oakland Unified School District
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Proposal of exclusive representative that public school employer must give a notice within restricted time frame about pending layoffs is within scope. Education Code does not preempt negotiations on that subject. Proposal of exclusive representative that public school employer must negotiate about timing of layoffs is within scope. Education Code does not preempt negotiations on that subject. more or view all topics or full text.
51214911/02/81
0999S State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection)
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
The state employer's prerogative to reduce its operations includes the authority to identify the specific positions in specific locations to be eliminated, and is not a negotiable subject; p. 2. The layoff of employees occupying the positions which managment has decided to eliminate affects the fundamental employment relationship. Under the Dills Act, a supersession statute, subjects affecting the fundamental employment relationship, such as the designation of the area in which employees will be laid off, are negotiable subjects; p. 2. A decision to reduce operations and lay off employees covered by the Dills Act is not negotiable because it is a matter of "fundamental management concern that requires that such decisions be left to the employer's prerogative;" p. 13. The state employer's fundamental management prerogative to reduce employer's prerogative;" p. 13. The state employer's fundamental management prerogative to reduce prerogative includes the right to designate specific positions in specific locations to be reduced through layoff; p. 15. The designation of the geographical area of layoff, as aspect of the layoff process, determines the degree of options to actual layoff available to individual employees. This designation directly affects the likelihood of demotion or termination of the employment relationship, as well as the likelihood of reemployment following demotion of layoff; p. 16. The Legilature has clearly directed that the subject of Government Code section 19997.2 is an appropriate subject of collective bargaining within the scope of representation; p. 18. The subject of designating the geographical area in which employees occupying those positions will be laid off is within the scope of represenation under the express terms of the Dills Act, a supersession occupying those positions will be laid off is within the scope of represenation under the express terms of the Dills Act, a supersession more or view all topics or full text.
172411206/22/93
1354H Regents of the University of California (Bawal, et al.)
1000.2076: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Lay-Offs
Employer has no duty to negotiate over reorganization of the department, including the decision to effectuate the reorganization via layoff. However, the employer must negotiate over effects of this decision. more or view all topics or full text.
233017309/30/99