All notes for Subtopic 601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2855E | The Accelerated Schools 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Effects bargaining violations are equally harmful as decision bargaining violations, as both disrupt and destabilize employer-employee relations by creating an imbalance in the power between management and employee organizations. (County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, pp. 23-24.) In other words, the effects bargaining obligation is not an inferior duty. (Id. at p. 24; County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 139 | 03/17/23 |
| 2855E | The Accelerated Schools 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining An employer is privileged to implement its changes before completing effects negotiations based on Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 720 (Compton) if: (1) implementation date is based on an immutable deadline or an important managerial interest, such that a delay in implementation beyond the date chosen would effectively undermine the employer’s right to make the decision; (2) employer gives sufficient advance notice of the decision and implementation date to allow for meaningful negotiations prior to implementation; and (3) employer negotiates in good faith prior to and after implementation]. (Id., pp. 14-15.) PERB clarified that its decision does not preclude an employer from asserting a Compton defense, including in circumstances where the Education Code sets a deadline by which layoffs must occur. (p. 16, fn. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 139 | 03/17/23 |
| 2855E | The Accelerated Schools 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Union had a colorable argument that charter school transferred out of the unit certain Health Service Coordinator duties, thereby requiring decision bargaining. (Alum Rock Union Elementary School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 322, pp. 10-12 [an employer must engage in decision bargaining if creation or abolition of classifications involves transfer of traditional bargaining unit duties without fundamental changes].) However, weighing the evidence and drawing reasonable inferences, PERB found that in creating the Registered Nurse (RN) job description, the charter school supplemented and upgraded the former Coordinator duties to such a degree that even the allegedly transferred duties became significantly higher in level than they had been as Coordinator duties. (See County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, p. 11 [employer had no decision bargaining obligation when it upgraded its level of protecting the public by replacing a bargaining unit security guard with a non-unit deputy sheriff].) Given there was no dispute that only an RN could provide the desired level of service, nor any dispute that RNs fall outside the bargaining unit, the charter school had an effects bargaining obligation rather than a decision bargaining obligation. (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 139 | 03/17/23 |
| 2855E | The Accelerated Schools 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Although an employer engaged in effects negotiations need not bargain over the policy reasons for its decision, it cannot refuse to bargain over alternatives, as those alternatives fundamentally impact the employment effects at issue. (Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 51 (Oxnard); County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Decision No. 2799-M, p. 27; Anaheim Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2504, pp. 10-11, 15 & adopting proposed decision at p. 41; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 22.) Indeed, one purpose of effects bargaining is to permit the exclusive representative an opportunity to persuade the employer to consider alternatives that may diminish the impact of the decision on employees. (Oxnard, supra, PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 52; Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2799, p. 27.) (p. 14, fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 139 | 03/17/23 |
| 2855E | The Accelerated Schools 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining An employer’s failure to provide an exclusive representative with adequate notice and an opportunity to bargain is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith if the decision itself falls within the scope of representation, or if the decision has reasonably foreseeable effects on terms or conditions of employment. (Regents of the University of California (2021) PERB Decision No. 2783-H, p. 18; Trustees of the California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, p. 20.) In the former instance PERB refers to the employer as having a “decision bargaining obligation,” while in the latter case the employer has an “effects bargaining obligation.” (County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, pp. 8, 23-24; County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, p. 12.) (pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 139 | 03/17/23 |
| 2799M | County of Santa Clara 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining While an employer need not negotiate over a decision that is outside the scope of representation, it nonetheless must meet and confer over alternatives to the decision as part of effects bargaining. (County of Sonoma (2021) PERB Decision No. 2772-M, p. 54 (Sonoma); Anaheim Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2504, pp. 10-11, 15 & adopting proposed decision at p. 41; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 22.) Thus, one purpose of effects bargaining is to permit the exclusive representative an opportunity to persuade the employer to consider alternatives that may diminish the impact of the decision on employees. (Sonoma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2772-M, p. 55.) County failed to bargain in good faith over consequences for surveillance technology ordinance violations where it refused to respond to the Association’s proposed alternatives, such as exempting Association members from the criminal provision, or explaining why traditional disciplinary measures were not adequate to address ordinance violations. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 94 | 12/20/21 |
| 2799M | County of Santa Clara 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Even when an employer has no obligation to bargain over a particular decision, it nonetheless must provide notice and an opportunity to meet and confer over any reasonably foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of representation. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, pp. 11-12.) The employer violates its duty to bargain if it fails to provide adequate advance notice, and in such circumstances the union need not demand to bargain effects as a prerequisite to filing an unfair practice charge. (County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, pp. 30-32.) However, where an employer does provide adequate notice, the union must request to bargain any reasonably foreseeable effects on negotiable matters. (Id. at p. 30.) The union’s request to bargain need not be formalistic or burdensome, nor anticipate every imaginable effect a proposed change may have, but rather must only identify negotiable areas of impact, thereby placing the employer on notice that it believes the employer’s proposed decision would affect one or more negotiable topics. (County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 94 | 12/20/21 |
| 2799M | County of Santa Clara 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining In unique circumstance where record did not demonstrate extent to which non-employees were likely to be subject to surveillance technology ordinance’s misdemeanor provision, PERB found it more practical to deal with the misdemeanor provision’s application to employees as a bargainable impact of a provision that could apply to individuals who are not employees, or to certain private companies or nonprofits. Thus, PERB found the MMBA’s purposes are best effectuated by: (1) not ordering bargaining over the decision to enact a misdemeanor provision that apparently may apply to the public generally; and (2) instead enforcing the County’s effects bargaining obligation, i.e., a duty to bargain over employee impacts, including all possible consequences for employees found to have violated the Ordinance. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 94 | 12/20/21 |
| 2799M | County of Santa Clara 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Where an employer’s decision to install surveillance equipment is “not primarily about monitoring employees while they provide public services, and is instead installed, for instance, to deter members of the public from committing crimes, to apprehend such persons who do perpetrate crimes, to protect public property, or to keep staff and members of the public safe,” decision bargaining is not required, but the employer must provide notice and an opportunity to bargain over negotiable effects, including whether and how such surveillance might be used in relation to evaluating or disciplining employees. (San Bernardino Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2599, p. 10, fn. 8.) Applying these principles to County ordinance surveillance technology definition, PERB found definition not subject to decision bargaining because the benefits of bargaining do not outweigh management’s need for freedom to protect the public’s privacy and safety. At same time, PERB recognized surveillance technology definition’s potential consequences on employee discipline and other matters within the scope of representation, and that these employment-related impacts are subject to effects bargaining. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 94 | 12/20/21 |
| 2803E | Oxnard Union High School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining An employer must meet and confer over alternatives to the decision as part of effects bargaining. (County of Sonoma (2021) PERB Decision No. 2772-M, p. 54 (Sonoma); Anaheim Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2504, pp. 10-11, 15 & adopting proposed decision at p. 41; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 22.) Thus, one purpose of effects bargaining is to permit the exclusive representative an opportunity to persuade the employer to consider alternatives that may diminish the impact of the decision on employees. (Sonoma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2772-M, p. 55.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 110 | 01/26/22 |
| 2803E | Oxnard Union High School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Where neither party declared impasse in effects negotiations—much less exhausted EERA’s post-impasse procedures—any claimed right to implement an allegedly non-negotiable decision before exhausting such impasse procedures would be contingent on evidence of an immutable deadline or important managerial interest, as well on the employer negotiating in good faith prior to and after implementation. (Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 720, pp. 14-15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 110 | 01/26/22 |
| 2803E | Oxnard Union High School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Where an employer has an obligation to meet and confer over reasonably foreseeable effects a decision, an employer may implement its decision before completing effects bargaining if it can establish each of three elements: (1) the implementation date was based on an immutable deadline or an important managerial interest, such that a delay in implementation beyond the date chosen would effectively undermine the employer’s right to make the decision; (2) the employer gave sufficient advance notice of the decision and implementation date to allow for meaningful negotiations prior to implementation; and (3) the employer negotiated in good faith prior to and after implementation. (Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 720, pp. 14-15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 110 | 01/26/22 |
| 2803E | Oxnard Union High School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Even when an employer has no obligation to bargain over a particular decision, it nonetheless must provide notice and an opportunity to meet and confer over any reasonably foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of representation. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, pp. 11-12.) The employer violates this duty if it fails to provide adequate advance notice, and in such circumstances the union need not request to bargain effects as a prerequisite to filing an unfair practice charge. (County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, pp. 30-32.) However, where an employer does provide adequate notice, the union must request to bargain any reasonably foreseeable effects on negotiable matters. (Id. at p. 30.) The union’s request to bargain need not be formalistic or burdensome, nor anticipate every imaginable effect a proposed change may have, but must only identify negotiable areas of impact, thereby placing the employer on notice that it believes the employer’s proposed decision would affect one or more negotiable topics. (County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, p. 9; Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313, p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 110 | 01/26/22 |
| 2854E | Antelope Valley Community College District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining 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. However, when an employer elects to move courses from one non-mandatory session to another non-mandatory session and in doing so alters distribution of workdays, holidays, and workload as it did here, it must provide affected employees’ exclusive representative adequate notice and an opportunity to bargain over both the decision and its effects. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 125 | 02/23/23 |
| 1737E | Colton Joint Unified School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining While health and safety concerns may be possible subjects for effects bargaining, CSEA never indicated that it requested to negotiate the changes in working conditions with the District or that the District refused to respond to such a request. Absent a request to meet and negotiate regarding effects of changes on matters within scope, it should not be assumed that charging party made such a request simply by acknowledging the changes. (adopting warning letter at p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 58 | 01/20/05 |
| 2833E | Pittsburg Unified School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining The Board rejected the District’s argument that its challenged decisions were outside the scope of representation because Adult Education teachers are temporary employees under Education Code section 44929.25, and thus are not entitled to any particular hours of work. Rehiring, reelection, course assignment processes, and work hours for temporary teachers fall within the scope of representation. And even where an employer’s decision involves a managerial decision regarding the nature and extent of a public service, the employer nonetheless must bargain over effects on terms or conditions of employment. The Board overruled Redwoods Community College District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1047, finding that the employer there made no such managerial decision. Rather, it kept public services the same while reallocating which employees did the work and categorically excluding certain employees from working more than 40 hours per week. The employer therefore had a decision bargaining obligation. Moreover, the Board found, Redwoods wrongly implied that an employer’s past practice of making discretionary decisions on terms and conditions of employment, based on financial and other considerations, means that it maintains the status quo when it makes further similar discretionary decisions. That implication misrepresented settled principles of the dynamic status quo doctrine. (pp. 8-9 & fn. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 57 | 09/13/22 |
| 2758M | County of Ventura 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining The Board found that the County failed to meet any of the elements of the Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 720 test, under which an employer is privileged to implement a decision on a non-mandatory topic prior to exhausting its effects bargaining obligation where: (1) the implementation date is based on an immutable deadline or an important managerial interest, such that a delay in implementation beyond the date chosen would effectively undermine the employer’s right to make the decision; (2) the employer gives sufficient advance notice of the decision and implementation date to allow for meaningful negotiations prior to implementation; and (3) the employer negotiates in good faith prior to implementation and continues to negotiate afterwards as to the subjects that were not resolved by virtue of implementation. The third element of the test includes an employer’s pre- and post-notice bargaining conduct. (pp. 49-50.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 87 | 03/23/21 |
| 2758M | County of Ventura 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining An employer must provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before implementation, just as it would for a decision involving a mandatory subject of bargaining. Once the union receives proper advance notice, it must demand to bargain effects or risk waiving its right to do so. The union’s demand must clearly communicate its desire to bargain over the effects of the decision, as opposed to the decision itself, and identify the matters within the scope of representation that it proposes to bargain. A union is not required to demand to bargain effects where an employer fails to provide notice prior to implementing the change. (p. 42.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 87 | 03/23/21 |
| 2783H | Regents of the University of California 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Before implementing a non-negotiable change, the parties must first negotiate over aspects of the change that impact matters within the scope of representation. Once a firm non-negotiable decision is made, the employer must “provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before implementation, just as it would be required to do before making a decision on a mandatory subject of bargaining.” (p. 28.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 38 | 07/26/21 |
| 2783H | Regents of the University of California 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining The decision to require influenza vaccinations in response to a public health hazard that affects not just employees, but also students and the general population, was not amenable to collective bargaining. (p. 24.) 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 * * * 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining “[T]he MMBA’s duty to bargain extends to the implementation and effects of a decision that has a foreseeable effect on matters within the scope of representation, even where the decision itself is not negotiable.” A failure or refusal to bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable change is equally as harmful as a failure to bargain over a negotiable change, as it disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations by creating an imbalance in the power between management and employee organizations. While the County was entitled to unilaterally decide to make changes to body worn camera policies and to permit the police review agency to interview an investigator, supervisor, witness, or custodian of records, the refusal to bargain over the effects of those decisions is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. (pp. 44-46.)Effects bargaining contemplates that negotiations may ultimately cause the employer to change its mind about the non-negotiable decision in some way. Because the Associations’ ability to propose alternatives to the County Board of Supervisors’ decision vanished as soon as it placed the ballot measure on the ballot, the County violated the statutory duty to meet and confer. (p. 54.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2761M | County of San Joaquin 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Advance notice and bargaining are the primary means by which the MMBA promotes its central purpose—communication—and would lead to greater understanding and harmony going forward. Work opportunities, hours, and mandatory furlough periods are within the scope of representation. (See, e.g., Modoc County Office of Education (2019) PERB Decision No. 2684, p. 10; City of Long Beach (2012) PERB Decision No. 2296-M, p. 23; County of Fresno (2010) PERB Decision No. 2125-M, adopting warning letter at p. 3.) A decision to contract with a striker replacement company had foreseeable effects on these mandatory subjects of bargaining. The employer therefore was required to provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before implementation. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 92 | 04/12/21 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Even if the University’s subcontracting decision was not itself negotiable, the University nonetheless had an obligation to provide notice and opportunity to bargain over negotiable effects before implementation. Because University failed to provide adequate notice of and opportunity to bargain over its decision to subcontract the Young Musician’s Program, it necessarily also failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for effects bargaining. (p. 49.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2680M | County of Santa Clara 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining While the employer was entitled to unilaterally decide to staff a particular shift with a non-bargaining unit peace officer rather than a bargaining unit employee, it was required to provide the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before it implemented the change. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 86 | 10/31/19 |
| 2680M | County of Santa Clara 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Because decision bargaining and effects bargaining promote the same purpose, the harm that flows from a violation of the duty to bargain either is equally odious. Chief among these harms are disrupting a union’s ability to effectively represent its members and tipping the balance of power between management and employee organizations. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 86 | 10/31/19 |
| 2680M | County of Santa Clara 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining A failure or refusal to bargain over effects of a non-negotiable change is no less harmful than a failure to bargain over a negotiable change. In either case, the violation “disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations and is inconsistent with the goals of our statutes to improve both employer-employee relations and communications between public employers and their employees.” [Citation] (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 86 | 10/31/19 |
| 2680M | County of Santa Clara 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining The duty to bargain extends to the implementation and effects of a decision that has a foreseeable effect on matters within the scope of representation, even where the decision itself is not negotiable. In both contexts—a decision involving a negotiable subject or a negotiable effect of a non-negotiable decision—the employer’s obligations are the same. Thus, an employer must provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before implementation, just as it would be required to do before making a decision on a mandatory subject of bargaining. (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 86 | 10/31/19 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Even if an employer’s decision is nonnegotiable, it must meet and confer over any foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of representation. Once the employer makes a firm decision, it must provide the exclusive representative notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. Upon receiving notice of the proposed change, the exclusive representative must make a valid request to bargain any foreseeable effects of the change on negotiable matters. Generally, an employer may not implement the nonnegotiable decision until the parties have reached agreement or impasse over the negotiable effects of the decision. (p. 47.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Even when an employer has no obligation to bargain over a particular decision, it must meet and confer over any foreseeable effects of the decision on matters within the scope of representation. (p. 32.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining City violated its obligation to bargain over the effects of its decision to subcontract and transfer bargaining unit work. PERB has long held that the MMBA’s duty to bargain extends to the implementation and effects of a decision that has a foreseeable effect on matters within the scope of representation, even where the decision itself is not negotiable. In both contexts—a decision involving a negotiable subject or a negotiable effect of a non-negotiable decision—the employer’s obligations are the same. Thus, an employer must provide timely notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before implementation, just as it would be required to do with a mandatory subject of bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining The University’s decision to subcontract the Young Musician’s Program was negotiable under either of two lines of PERB and federal cases. First, it was substantially motivated by labor costs and personnel problems which were peculiarly suitable for resolution through collective bargaining. University’s principal decisionmaker acknowledged that his decision to transfer the Program to a non-University entity was influenced by concerns that the Program consumed revenue from another department needed to cover salaries and other human resources expenditures, and that the Program was undergoing a period of growth and expansion, portending additional expenses in the future. Second, its practical effect was to replace University employees with those of another employer, the Young Musicians Choral Orchestra (YMCO), to perform essentially the same services under similar circumstances. The YMCO later “restored” the Program’s operations, pursuant to contractual agreements with the University. The YMCO uses University space for its performances. Its director is the same, its board president is the same, its marketing identity is largely the same, including its use of University trademarks and scripts, its musical instruments are the same, several of its teachers are the same, and the students served by the Program are also the same. We conclude that the University was not authorized to act unilaterally to close the Program and transfer operations to YMCO. (pp. 33, 38, 41.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2504E | Anaheim Union High School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining An employer may lawfully propose withdrawal of pending grievances and/or unfair practice charges as part of a settlement involving mandatory subjects of bargaining; however, insisting to impasse “in the face of a clear and express refusal by the union to bargain” on the withdrawal of pending grievances or unfair practice charges or conditioning settlement of mandatory subjects on the withdrawal of grievances or unfair practice charges is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. Because employer’s proposal to limit its future liability by re-negotiating the parties’ contract language governing employee hours was within the scope of mandatory subjects for bargaining, the charging party’s allegation of insistence to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining was dismissed. (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 80 | 10/14/16 |
| 2504E | Anaheim Union High School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining 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 |
| 2433M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining 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.) (A hospital is not liable for failing to bargain over the implementation of a layoff where the union does not offer any concrete proposals on any negotiable subjects related to the layoffs.) (A union’s failure to provide alternative cost-saving measures is an appropriate factor in support of the conclusion that a hospital did not fail to bargain in good faith over the effects of a 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.) 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’s layoff implementation date is not arbitrary when: (1) it is pegged to economic factors external to the hospital’s decision-making authority and beyond its control; (2) the hospital exercises its management prerogative to reduce staff in light of foreseeably lower patient census numbers and a reduction in revenue; and (3) the union never proposed an alternative date for the layoffs based on a different substantive reason other than that cited by the hospital. Two months is a sufficient amount of time for a hospital to provide a union with notice of layoffs, when it is reasonably soon after the union’s date of certification as the exclusive representative of the relevant bargaining unit. 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. A hospital is justified in prioritizing limited negotiating time available to the effects on the employees to be laid off and deferring the issues concerning the remaining employees, especially when the union refuses to constructively engage on the hospital’s proposals on a range of effects issues typically related to employees to be laid off. A hospital is justified in prioritizing negotiations concerning the employees to be laid off over negotiations concerning the effects on the employees remaining after a layoff, when the union demands a detailed justification for the layoff and fails to engage the hospital on its effects bargaining proposals as to the employees to be laid off, and where the employer reasonably believes the effects on remaining employees will be minimal based on the reduced scope of the layoff, the prediction that patient census would further decline, and the hospital’s determination to take a wait-and-see approach using temporary schedules following the layoffs. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 4 | 06/15/15 |
| 2394C | Santa Clara County Superior Court 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining The Legislature intended in Government Code section 68106 to authorize the California Judicial Council to close courts and implement furloughs without bargaining over that decision. 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 |
| 2313E | Rio Hondo Community College District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining In Trustees of the California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H (CSU) we ruled that when assessing a charge of failure to negotiate over effects of a non-negotiable decision, the proper focus is on prospective, not actual, impact. We there reviewed and disavowed prior Board decisions, to the extent they require a charging party to establish “actual impact” when alleging failure or refusal to bargain over negotiable effects. For the reasons outlined in CSU, we likewise disavow similar provision in San Francisco Unified School District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2048. A charging party may state a prima facie case of refusal to negotiate over the effects on discipline and evaluation procedures of a firm decision to install surveillance cameras, without alleging that the employer has created either new grounds for discipline or new evaluation procedures. Upon receiving a union’s effects bargaining demand, the employer has three options: (1) accede to the demand and address the union’s concerns in negotiations; (2) ask the union for its negotiation justification, viz., seek clarification of (a) the areas of impact proposed for negotiation and (b) whether these areas of impact are within the scope of representation; or (3) refuse the union’s demand. In choosing the third option, the employer does so at its peril if its refusal is later determined to be unjustified. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 197 | 03/21/13 |
| 2385E | Bellflower Unified School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining 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. Before an employer may refuse to negotiate after receiving an effects bargaining demand, it must attempt to clarify through discussions with the union any uncertainty as to what is proposed for bargaining and whether it falls within the scope of representation. Once the District made a firm decision to close the school site and, subsequently, received a valid effects bargaining demand, the duty to bargain in good faith over the effects of that decision arose. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 17 | 06/30/14 |
| 2298M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining 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. 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. 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.) more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 137 | 12/20/12 |
| 2351M | City of Sacramento 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Where a decision to transfer work results in one group of employees ceasing to perform duties that were previously shared with other, non-unit personnel, both the transfer of work and the effects of that decision are negotiable. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 104 | 12/24/13 |
| 2287H | Trustees of the California State University 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Under HEERA, before implementing a non-negotiable decision, the parties must first negotiate over effects that have an impact on matters within the scope of bargaining. Once a firm decision is made, an employer must provide the exclusive representative with notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. When claiming that an employer’s non-negotiable decision will have an effect on a subject within the scope of bargaining, the charging party bears the burden of alleging facts demonstrating a reasonably foreseeable impact on employees’ working conditions. Because bargaining over effects contemplates that negotiations will occur prior to implementation of the non-negotiable decision, the parties must assess the effects of the decision prospectively, without the benefit of hindsight. Where the employee organization has made a timely demand for bargaining on an issue within the scope of bargaining, the employee has the following three choices: (1) accede to the demand and address the employee organization’s concerns in negotiations; (2) ask the employee organization for its negotiation justification; or (3) refuse the employee organization’s demand. In choosing the third option, the employer does so at its peril if its refusal is later determined to be unjustified. Union met its burden of establishing a prima facie case of failure to bargain effects of management decision to implement executive order governing student mental health services, where request identified reasonably foreseeable impact on workload, thereby triggering duty to bargain potential impacts prior to implementation. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 79 | 10/04/12 |
| 2218E | Pasadena Area Community College District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining 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 |
| 2196S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Avenal State Prison) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of the California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H and County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M * * * 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, where the Board held that a demand to bargain effects merely needs to identify potential prospective effects, not actual effects, and County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects, if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *In order to state a prima facie case of failure to bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable management decision, the employee organization must demonstrate that it made a valid request to negotiate over identifiable, reasonably foreseeable, and negotiable effects of the decision. In the absence of such a request, an employer who implements a nonnegotiable decision without prior notice does not violate the duty to bargain. Ideally, if the employer reasonably anticipates that its decision will have negotiable effects, it will provide sufficient notice prior to implementation to afford an opportunity for negotiation. However, where the employer does not reasonably anticipate any negotiable effects and therefore implements with little or no prior notice, the union may still demand bargaining after implementation, provided it can identify any negotiable effects. In such cases, once the union is aware of the change, the failure to give formal notice is of no legal import. Moreover, the union does not waive its right to bargain by failing to request bargaining prior to implementation. Nonetheless, the union must still make a valid request to negotiate that clearly identifies the negotiable effects of the decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 30 | 08/12/11 |
| 1876Ha | Trustees of the California State University 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Even when a decision is not within scope, an employer is obligated to provide the exclusive representative with notice and an opportunity to bargain the effects of the decision on matters within scope. However, the union must demand to bargain the effects of the decision and the demand must clearly identify the negotiable effects. Absent such an identification, the employer has no duty to bargain. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 73 | 04/15/09 |
| 2115S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of Personnel Administration) 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining 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. | 34 | 99 | 06/10/10 |
| 2110S | State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain effects need not identify specific effects. * * *Department’s decision to close veterans’ home’s acute care unit and layoff acute care employees was not within the scope of representation because the department did not contract out bargaining unit work to private hospitals but merely ceased to provide acute care services to home’s residents. Letter stating union’s displeasure that it was not afforded an opportunity to show the department why acute care unit closure was not cost-effective did not constitute valid demand to bargain negotiable effects of the closure decision. Allegation that union representatives “sought to negotiate over the decision to close and its impact,” absent further details of the bargaining demand, insufficient to establish an oral demand to bargain effects. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 90 | 06/01/10 |
| 2097M | County of Riverside * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain need not identify specific effects, and also that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of its decision. * * *In dealing with effects bargaining, the employee organization is entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to bargain over the negotiable effects of a non-negotiable decision. Where formal notice is not given, but the employee organization receives actual notice of a decision, the effects of which it believes to be negotiable, the employer’s failure to give formal notice is of no legal import and the burden is on the employee organization to request bargaining. The employee organization’s request must clearly indicate the desire to bargain over the effects as opposed to the decision itself. Failure by the employee organization to make a valid request to bargain the negotiable effects of the decision constitutes a waiver of the right to bargain regarding those effects. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 49 | 02/10/10 |
| 2062S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services and Office of Protective Services) 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining While the union objected to the employer’s decisions to demolish a security tower and to install surveillance cameras, it did not make a demand to bargain that identified any specific negotiable effects of the decisions. Accordingly, the employer did not violate the Dills Act by refusing to bargain over the effects of its decisions. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 155 | 09/14/09 |
| 2055M | Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining When an employer’s notice of a proposed change provides sufficient information from which the union can determine the foreseeable effects of the change, the union’s failure to demand to bargain over those effects within a reasonable time waives its right to bargain over effects of the change. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 144 | 08/26/09 |
| 2048E | San Francisco Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313-E 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313-E, where the Board held that a demand to bargain only needs to identify potential prospective effects, not actual effects. * * *Employees’ reporting location is not within the scope of representation under EERA. Charge failed to establish that the employer’s decision to change employees’ reporting location had any actual effect on subjects within the scope of representation. Thus, the employer had no duty to bargain with the union over the decision or its effects prior to implementing the change in reporting location. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 123 | 06/30/09 |
| 1969E | Beverly Hills Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H and County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, where the Board held that a demand to bargain only needs to identify potential prospective effects, not actual effects, and by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain need not identify specific effects. * * *District had no duty to bargain over decision to adopt policy requiring teachers to return student examinations upon parent request but did have duty to bargain over any reasonably foreseeable effects of policy on subjects within scope of representation. Charge failed to allege facts establishing that policy had negotiable effect on teachers’ work hours. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 115 | 07/08/08 |
| 1926H | Trustees of the California State University 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining While the decision to implement a computer policy is within CSU’s exercise of managerial prerogative, the action does not relieve CSU of the duty to negotiate the effects of the decision on bargaining unit members if it impacts matters within the scope of representation, e.g., discipline and union access rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 152 | 10/31/07 |
| 1848S | State of California (Department of Corrections) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *No prima facie violation of State’s duty to bargain effects where there is no evidence that the Union demanded to bargain the effects of the change in staffing levels or submitted proposals addressing safety concerns. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 150 | 08/09/06 |
| 1822E | Santee Elementary School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining An employer is obligated to provide the exclusive representative with notice and an opportunity to negotiate over the effects of its decisions that have an impact upon matters within scope. (Oakland Unified School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 540.) Union did not waive its right to negotiate the impacts of the Board Policy because it had waived its right to negotiate over the decision to adopt the BP. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 72 | 02/22/06 |
| 1720M | City of Richmond * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, where the Board held that an effects bargaining demand need not explicitly identify negotiable areas of impact, but must place the employer on notice that the exclusive representative seeks to negotiate over effects and that it believes the proposed change affects one or more subjects within the scope of representation. * * *Under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, 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. | 29 | 31 | 12/13/04 |
| 1388S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Even when an employer has no obligation to negotiate about a particular decision, the Dills Act obligates the employer to meet and confer over all reasonably foreseeable effects of that decision to the extent that they impact the terms and conditions of employment. Reduced supervision that effected discipline and promotional opportunities was negotiable impact of reorganization. Placing correctional officers into defacto supervisory roles is negotiable effect, possible conflicting supervisory orders, diminished training opportunities, insufficient contract with supervisors. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31107 | 05/25/00 |
| 1347S | State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles) 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Where, despite actual notice of the change, exclusive representative never requested bargaining over effects of employer's decision to implement alternate work schedule pursuant to the terms of expired collective bargaining agreement, employer's failure to negotiate said effects did not violate Act; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30163 | 09/02/99 |
| 1138E | Barstow Unified School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining While under the terms of the contract the district had no obligation to negotiate with the union over the decision to contract out, the effects of that decision on matters within the scope of representation are negotiable; p. 17. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27044 | 02/20/96 |
| 0955E | Eureka City School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining The district is required to negotiate the effects of its smoking policy upon request of the union, including any disciplinary consequences resulting from enforcement of the policy; p. 17. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23168 | 10/27/92 |
| 0768E | Allan Hancock Community College District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining No violation of duty to negotiate effects where Association failed to signify to District its desire to bargain effects of decision; p. 2 of dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20203 | 09/20/89 |
| 0651E | Fremont Union High School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Mt. Diablo (PERB Dec. No. 373) standard -- "Employer has duty to negotiate the reasonably foreseeable adverse impact of nonnegotiable decision" -- is clarified. Employer's duty attaches only to those immediate or prospective effects which are reasonably certain to occur and causally related to the nonnegotiable decision at issue. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19021 | 12/30/87 |
| 0640H | Regents of the University of California 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Duty to bargain effects arises as soon as firm decision made; while abandonment of proposal extinguishes further duty to bargain effects, it does not excuse failure to bargain prior to abandonment; preliminary steps toward implementation prior to bargaining effects unlawful; not unlawful to implement those aspects of non-negotiable reorganization plan where no foreseeable negotiable effects of implemented aspects and where those aspects independent of aspects with negotiable effects. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19007 | 12/10/87 |
| 0556E | Stanislaus County Department of Education 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Employer did bargain effects or was willing to do so; in any event, union waived right to negotiate effects by insisting on bargaining decision and ignoring effects proposals from employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17039 | 12/31/85 |
| 1753M | Oakland Housing Authority 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Board dismissed charge alleging that employer failed to negotiate over effects of decision as charging party failed to identify any negotiable effects. Charging party’s desire to negotiate over the deprivation of job opportunities was just another way to demand negotiations over the decision itself. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 94 | 02/16/05 |
| 1221H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore) * * * OVERRULED IN PART BY The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *Although the University's decision to reduce staffing in the Superblock was outside of the scope of representation, the University had an obligation to meet and negotiate over all reasonably foreseeable effects thereof; pp. 6-7. Change in hours is a reasonably foreseeable, and therefore negotiable, effect of staffing change; p. 8. Reduction in hours for non-transferred personnel was not reasonably foreseeable effect of transfers despite coincidence of timing; pp. 8-9. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28161 | 09/26/97 |
| 0484S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining No duty to bargain where no action taken after certification of union which had effect on negotiable subject. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16073 | 01/24/85 |
| 0373E | Mt. Diablo Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b and OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b and OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *The decision to lay off certificated employees is a managerial prerogative, but management is obligated to negotiate the effects of its decision; p. 20. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15017 | 12/30/83 |
| 0337E | Kern Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *Decision to lay off employees is outside of scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14229 | 08/19/83 |
| 0326E | Oakland Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * Effects of layoff negotiable; p. 30. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14195 | 07/11/83 |
| 0322E | Alum Rock Union Elementary School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining Decision to create new classification to perform a function not previously performed, or to abolish a classification and cease engaging in the activity previously performed by employees in that classification need not be negotiated - but effects of its decision which fall within scope are negotiable. Citing Solano County CCD (1982) PERB Dec. No. 219, and South Bay UnESD (1982) PERB Dec. No. 207. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14184 | 06/27/83 |
| 0223E | Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining No violation where exclusive rep made a general demand to bargain over decision to lay off, a managerial prerogative, rather than a specific request to bargain effects of lay-off. A valid request to bargain must signify a desire to negotiate on a subject within scope although it is not essential that the request be made in a particular form; pp. 7-9. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13162 | 06/30/82 |
| 0919E | Sylvan Union Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *No prima facie violation of District's duty to bargain effects where Association receives actual notice of decision and fails to make an adequate demand to bargain. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23017 | 01/07/92 |
| 1354H | Regents of the University of California (Bawal, et al.) 601.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Decision vs Effects Bargaining The University does has an obligation to meet and discuss effects of the reorganization decision on terms and conditions of employment with the nonexclusive representative; pp. 45-46, proposed dec; When the University issued layoff letters to all Department employees simultaneously and failed to provide requested information, the time and opportunity for meaningful meeting and discussing about how employees would be selected for layoff was past. The University failed to provide reasonable time for meeting and discussing before implementing its layoff and rehire program. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30173 | 09/30/99 |