All notes for Subtopic 601.02000 – Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201)
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2868M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * El Camino Healthcare District, El Camino Hospital, and Silicon Valley Medical Development, LLC 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) Multiple entities have a joint-employer relationship if each entity has at least a partial right to control certain employment conditions or direct the manner and method in which work is performed. (County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M, pp. 28-29.) Under the single-employer doctrine, in contrast, PERB looks at four factors: (1) functional integration of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or common financial control. (Id. at p. 18.) Single employer status does not require the presence of all four factors. (Ibid.) PERB’s inquiry considers not only how many factors are present, but also to what extent they are present. (Id. at p. 19.) In assessing a single-employer claim, integrated provision of services and use of a common business name are significant factors. (Id. at pp. 19-20 & 42-43.) The four factors assist PERB in analyzing the practical realities to determine whether requiring bargaining on a single-employer basis will foster fair and effective collective bargaining by bringing to the table the parties who are able to work out difficult issues and foster harmonious labor relations. (Id. at pp. 22, 25 & fn. 29.) (pp. 35-36.) Entities in a single-employer relationship must bargain over all terms and conditions of employment, while those in a joint employer relationship must bargain only over terms they control or partially control. (Id. at p. 33.) Neither a joint-employer relationship nor a single-employer relationship reflects a formal merger of separate entities. (Id. at pp. 40-41.) Rather, each is a legal construct for collective bargaining purposes. (Id. at pp. 40-43.) Such a construct has legal significance only for the purpose of representation and collective bargaining. (Id. at pp. 41-42 & 49.) (pp. 36-37.) A single-employer or joint-employer finding neither expands nor contracts the entities under PERB’s jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 41-43.) Thus, when a single-employer or joint-employer relationship exists, PERB asserts jurisdiction only over those entities in the relationship that otherwise fall under PERB jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 39-43.) (p. 37.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 36 | 08/15/23 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) The regional committee committed an unfair practice by designating a trial court as its bargaining representative when doing so precluded the employee organization from negotiating over a subject within the scope of representation: wages. (p. 37.) A party cannot unilaterally determine that the existence of alternative negotiable benefits eliminates its obligation to at least consider in good faith other proposals within the scope of representation. Nor may a party insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and thereby refuse to discuss the other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (pp. 36-37.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) A specific delegation of bargaining responsibility may be unlawful if it is found to be inconsistent with the obligation to bargain in good faith. (p. 35.) Although regional committees generally may delegate their bargaining authority under the Court Interpreter Act, requiring a union to individually negotiate the impacts of changes by local trial courts to retirement benefits on a court-by-court basis violates the Act’s purpose because the trial courts lack the statutory authority to change interpreters’ wages. (pp. 35-36.) A regional committee is thus required to meet and confer over the impacts of a trial court’s change to employee pension contributions, and it may not delegate that obligation to the trial court. (p. 36.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2670M | County of Santa Clara 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) Under the successorship doctrine, a successor determination creates a presumption that the union which represented its predecessor’s employees continues to enjoy majority status with the successor’s employees, thus requiring the successor employer to recognize and bargain with that union. (p. 14-15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 67 | 09/20/19 |
| 2670M | County of Santa Clara 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) Under the successorship doctrine, an employer generally succeeds to the collective-bargaining obligation of a predecessor if a majority of its employees, consisting of a “substantial and representative complement,” in an appropriate bargaining unit are former employees of the predecessor and if the similarities between the two operations manifest a “‘substantial continuity’ between the enterprises. (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 67 | 09/20/19 |
| 2670M | County of Santa Clara 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) The Legislature’s failure to address successorship in the MMBA does not mean it intended to prohibit application of the successorship doctrine to local public agencies. Legislative silence is not the equivalent of positive legislation. (p. 18.) Because the NLRA and MMBA similarly protect employees’ rights to bargain collectively through an employee representative of their own choosing and bar employers from refusing to negotiate with their employees’ chosen representative, there is no statutory reason to preclude application of the successorship doctrine in California’s public sector. (pp. 18-19.) However, differences between private and public sector employment require a more flexible accretion policy in the public sector to ensure that bargaining units are appropriately and rationally structured. (p. 19.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 67 | 09/20/19 |
| 2464M | City of San Diego * * * Affirmed, 5 Cal.5th 898 (2018). Remedy modified by City of San Diego (2019) PERB Decision No. 2464a-M * * * 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) Board affirmed ALJ’s finding that the Mayor acted as the statutory agent of the City in announcing and supporting ballot measure to change City policy regarding employee pension benefits where evidence demonstrated that City officials and their staff made no serious effort to segregate the official duties of the Mayor and his staff from their ostensibly private activities in support of the pension reform initiative. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 108 | 12/29/15 |
| 2317Sa | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, State Personnel Board) 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) The State Personnel Board does not have a duty to meet and confer over its proposed rules concerning state civil service disciplinary hearings and appeals. Even though the Governor or his designee is the state’s representative for purposes of meeting and conferring, it is well established that the appointing authority will be liable for violations of Dills Act section 3519(c) when the appointing authority makes a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment of its own employees. Although Dills Act section 3519(a), proscribing unfair practices, declares that it will be unlawful for the state to refuse or fail to meet and confer in good faith, the Legislature did not intend by this wording to impose on the State Personnel Board a duty to negotiate with employee organizations when it is exercising its regulatory function, as opposed to acting as an employer or appointing authority of its own employees. An agency must be acting in its role as an “employer” or “appointing authority” in order to be subject to the Dills Act. When the State Personnel Board adopted regulations regarding disciplinary procedures for civil service employees, it was acting in its regulatory role to administer the civil service system, specifically regarding discipline hearings and appeal procedures. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 80 | 12/19/14 |
| 1928E | San Jose/Evergreen Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Ventura (2018) PERB Decision No. 2600-M, where the Board held a public entity with a right of control maintains its status as an employer regardless of the level of actual control it decides to exercise at any given time as long as it shares influence over, or co-determines, one or more terms or conditions of employment. * * *A joint employer situation arises where two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees -- where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment. A joint employer theory does not depend upon the existence of a single integrated enterprise; rather, it assumes the enterprises are independent legal entities that have “historically chosen to handle jointly . . . important aspects of their employer-employee relationship.” The central focus in such cases is the level of control exerted over the employees by the enterprises in question. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 159 | 11/16/07 |
| 1978S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) The State did not commit an unlawful unilateral change in policy by virtue of the Governor's signing SB 1105 into law, because in signing the legislation the Governor was carrying out a function directed by the California Constitution. When the Governor is acting as a participant in the legislative process and is fulfilling his/her constitutional responsibilities, those acts are to be viewed separate and apart from his/her responsibilities as chief executive and employer of State employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 148 | 09/26/08 |
| 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 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Kern & Kern County Hospital Authority (2019) PERB Decision No. 2659-M. * * *While the corporation may have some overlap in management, as CSU officers serve on the Corporation’s Board of Directors and its executive director is appointed by the CSU president and they have shared purposes, i.e., providing student housing, there was no common ownership between the two entities. As such, the Corporation was not either an alter ego or a single employer with CSU. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 118 | 05/12/06 |
| 1782C | Lake County Superior Court 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) Individual employees do not have standing to file a charge alleging the employer failed to comply with the meet and confer requirements of the Trial Court Act. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 7 | 11/01/05 |
| 1305S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers) 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) Dills Act section 3513(j) defines the State employer for purposes of bargaining as the Governor or his designated representatives. As the Governor's designee, DPA may in turn delegate bargaining authority to State agencies or departments, at its discretion. There is no evidence that such delegation is either a subject within the scope of bargaining or that this delegation has interfered with the State's obligation to bargain in good faith. A specific delegation of bargaining may be unlawful if it is found to be inconsistent with the obligation to bargain in good faith. The Board reviews the totality of the circumstances to determine whether there are sufficient objective indicia of a subjective intention to participate in good faith in the bargaining process and to reach agreement, or, conversely, of an intent to frustrate or avoid the bargaining process. agreement, or, conversely, of an intent to frustrate or avoid the bargaining process. respondent engaged in unlawful conduct. (Id. at p. 5.) Charging Party's assertion that ". . . department wide bargaining on this issue would severely restrain the Union due to the costs and time associated with bargaining with the multitude of departments that employ Unit members" is insufficient to show that DPA's delegation of bargaining to individual departments presents a clear and present danger to that process. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30031 | 12/22/98 |
| 1145S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees) 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) The Department of Personnel Administration acts as the Governor's designee and it may delegate the authority to bargain to State agencies or departments at its discretion. Such a delegation is not a subject within the scope of representation and it does not interfere with the State's obligation to bargain in good faith; pp. 5-6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27061 | 03/08/96 |
| 0703E | San Francisco Community College District 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) No violation for failure to bargain over unilateral change because Chancellor has the right, pursuant to charter, administrative ordinances, rules and regulations and civil service provisions of the City and County of San Francisco, to determine whether civil service employees working at the district may also occupy certificated positions. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19179 | 10/28/88 |
| 0706S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) No duty to negotiate imposed on Governor when acting in legislative capacity in submitting proposed budget to the Legislature pursuant to Article IV, Section 12 of the California Constitution. Board dismissed unfair practice charge that Governor failed to meet and confer in good faith before submitting his proposed budget to the Legislature. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20010 | 12/16/88 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 23 | 06/30/16 |
| 1748E | Alum Rock Union Elementary School District 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) Charge alleging unilateral change filed by an individual was dismissed as only the exclusive representative has standing to allege a failure to meet and confer. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 73 | 02/07/05 |
| 0325E | Long Beach Unified School District 601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201) Employer who did not initiate transfers--obligated to bargain on demand--but not obligated to give notice to employee organization; p. 4. Charge against receiving District - not transferring employer changes the obligation of employee organization. Employee organization has initial burden of demanding to negotiate on behalf of new employees; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14193 | 07/08/83 |