All notes for Subtopic 601.04000 – When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2610H Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers)
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Where University failed to give adequate notice of negotiable decision, it necessarily also failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity to bargain over the negotiable effects of that decision. more or view all topics or full text.
4310012/19/18
2610H Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers)
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Although the University argued in its post-hearing brief that union had waived any right to meet and confer by failing to request negotiations, it is well-settled that a union cannot waive bargaining over a negotiable matter when it had no actual or constructive notice of the issue, until after the employer had already reached a firm decision. more or view all topics or full text.
4310012/19/18
2610H Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers)
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
University failed to satisfy its duty to provide sufficient notice of a contemplated change when it informed union that it was considering discontinuing a long-time program but made no mention, in any of these communications, of the University’s plans to subcontract or “transfer” the program’s operations to a “successor” organization. By the time the union learned of the transfer, it was well underway. more or view all topics or full text.
4310012/19/18
2524M Salinas Valley Memorial Heatlhcare System
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Union was not bound by its predecessor’s acquiescence in a past practice, and was permitted to demand to bargain over the practice. more or view all topics or full text.
4115403/21/17
2523C El Dorado County Superior Court
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
The Board rejected Charging Party’s exception that, by requesting bargaining over a single issue following impasse, the Charging Party had effectively broken the deadlock and revived the Respondent’s duty to bargain over the single issue, which had already been part of the overall deadlock reached in negotiations for a successor MOU. (pp. 10-11.) The Board found no violation of the duty to bargain because Charging Party’s request for single-issue negotiations did not break the impasse and revive the Respondent’s duty to bargain. Although impasse necessarily entails an overall deadlock in negotiations, it may stem from disagreement over a single subject, if the disagreement is of such importance that the parties’ failure to agree on that one subject causes all negotiations to break down. (pp. 10-11.) The party asserting that an impasse has been broken must point to the changed circumstances that would justify a return to the bargaining table. Mere speculation regarding possible concessions by the other party is insufficient to revive bargaining. There must be substantial evidence that a party is committed to a new bargaining position. Vague and general statements about possible concessions or a request by one party for additional meetings, if unaccompanied by an indication of the areas in which that party foresees future concessions, are insufficient to break an impasse where the other party has clearly announced that its position is final. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.
4115203/20/17
2571M City of San Ramon
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Even if parties have reached a bona fide impasse after completing negotiations in good faith, an impasse “can be terminated by nearly any change in bargaining-related circumstances” that is sufficient to suggest that “attempts to adjust differences may no longer be futile.” (PERB v. Modesto City Schools District (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881, 899.) “Most obviously, an impasse will be broken when one party announces a retreat from some of its negotiating demands.” (Ibid.) Once impasse is broken, “the duty to bargain revives.” (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text.
43606/20/18
2443M City of Milpitas
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
A union president’s e-mail requesting to bargain over any proposed change in working conditions contains a sufficiently clear demand to bargain over the contracting out of proposed bargaining unit work. more or view all topics or full text.
403607/29/15
2313E Rio Hondo Community College District
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
The duty to bargain over effects of a non-negotiable decision arises when an employer makes a firm decision. Once a firm decision is made, an employer must provide the union with notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate before taking action that impacts matters within the scope of representation. This includes the duty to seek clarification of what is proposed for bargaining and whether what is proposed falls within the scope of representation. A union’s effects bargaining demand is sufficient if it clearly identifies negotiable areas of impact, viz., subject matters within the scope of representation, and clearly indicates a desire to bargain over the effects of the decision as opposed to the decision itself. Upon receiving such a demand, the duty to bargain obliges the employer either to bargain, or to seek clarification of the union’s negotiability rationale. If the employer seeks such clarification, and it thereafter refuses to bargain, it may defend this refusal on the ground that the union’s bargaining demand, as clarified, failed to address an impact that was both reasonably foreseeable and within the scope of representation. If the employer refuses to bargain without seeking clarification of the union’s negotiability rationale, it fails to meet and negotiate in good faith. A union’s effects bargaining demand should afford the employer general notice of the union’s interest in the effects of the decision. An effects bargaining demand need not be specific or made in a particular form so long as it adequately signifies to the employer a desire to negotiate on a subject within the scope of representation, to wit, the effects of a non-negotiable decision rather than the decision itself. Further, the demand must identify clearly the areas of impact, viz., matters within the scope of representation, on which it proposes to bargain. The proper place to clarify bargaining demands and proposals is at the bargaining table itself. This is especially true in effects bargaining, where parties must anticipate the future impact of a non-negotiable decision announced but not yet implemented. When approaching effects bargaining, parties must anticipate changes yet to flow from the employer’s decision. Union and employer may disagree over what effects are possible and within the scope of representation. Thus, clarification is essential. Upon receiving an effects bargaining demand, and before refusing to negotiate, an employer 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. Refusing an effects bargaining demand without first attempting to clarify ambiguities and or whether matters proposed for bargaining fall within the scope of representation, violates the duty to bargain in good faith. more or view all topics or full text.
03/21/13
2385E Bellflower Unified School District
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Once an employer makes a firm decision to act on a matter within its managerial prerogative, a duty arises to provide the exclusive representative with notice and an opportunity to negotiate the effects of that decision. An exclusive representative need not recite a formulaic phrase, but may express its request in any form that conveys its desire to meet and confer or negotiate about a matter within the scope of representation. 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. Even if the classified positions to be abolished by the action taken at the school board meeting did not result in layoffs, reductions in work hours, reductions in pay, or the closing of the school site, the District was still required to meet with the union to seek clarification. more or view all topics or full text.
391706/30/14
2298M Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Once an employer makes a layoff decision, the employer is obliged to notify the organization representing employees of the decision and to meet and confer in good faith, upon request, regarding the reasonably foreseeable impacts and effects of the layoff decision. Having reached a firm decision, driven by labor cost considerations, to lay off employees, an MMBA employer must meet and confer, upon request, with the union representing the employees, both as to the implementation (including the timing, and the number and identity of employees to be laid off) and as to the effects of the layoff on the remaining employees, including post-layoff workload and safety conditions of remaining employees. Thus, where a layoff is driven by labor cost considerations, an employer must meet and confer in good faith, upon request, over the implementation and the reasonably foreseeable impacts and effects on remaining employees. Where an employer believes a matter to be outside the scope of mandatory meeting and conferring, it is obliged to explore the matter in meet and confer discussions. Thereupon, the employer may change its position and meet and confer on the matter, or it may continue to assert its prior position and decline to meet and confer. In the latter case, if the employer is incorrect, its refusal to meet and confer is unlawful. The hospital’s refusal to meet and confer, at least on safety and workload issues, was absolute and thus unlawful. (City of Richmond (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259; Sierra Joint Community College District (1981) PERB Decision No. 179.) more or view all topics or full text.
12/20/12
2308M City of Santa Rosa
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Unilateral impositions after the completion of impasse procedures do not impose a collective bargaining agreement with a duration clause limiting negotiations for a specified period. The employer’s request to the union to convene negotiations following implementation of a last, best and final offer does not demonstrate bad faith bargaining. more or view all topics or full text.
03/08/13
2315M County of Sacramento
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Once and employer makes a firm decision to change negotiable terms and conditions of employment, it must notify the exclusive representative and provide it a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. Union’s demand to negotiate over effects of a non-negotiable management decision must indicate that it is effects, as opposed to the decision, over which the union seeks to negotiate, and the demand must identify the matters within scope potentially affected by the proposed management change. Mere protests or objections to the employer’s proposed change do not suffice as a demand to negotiate. more or view all topics or full text.
04/15/13
2287H Trustees of the California State University
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
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.
10/04/12
2218E Pasadena Area Community College District
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
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.
368011/09/11
2125M County of Fresno
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
No duty to bargain the implementation of furloughs when it represents the application of existing policy. Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. Erroneous publication of the policy by the County Personnel Department suggesting that certain bargaining units were exempt from the policy was not sufficient to show that the Board of Supervisors had in fact amended the policy to exclude those bargaining units. more or view all topics or full text.
3412208/11/10
1876Ha Trustees of the California State University
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Notice of a proposed change in policy must be given sufficiently in advance of a firm decision to make such a change to allow the exclusive representative a reasonable amount of time to make a demand to negotiate. When an employer has made a firm decision to make a change in policy, the failure to request bargaining will not be considered a waiver of a right to bargain if the request would be futile. more or view all topics or full text.
337304/15/09
2110S State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Demand to meet and confer over negotiable effects of a non-negotiable decision must identify those subjects within the scope of representation impacted by the decision as well as the specific effects over which the union wishes to bargain. 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.
349006/01/10
2097M County of Riverside * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
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. 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. 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.
344902/10/10
2081S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Statements that union believed proposal to waiver of statutory rights and requests for clarification did not communicate a clear opposition to further negotiations over the proposal. more or view all topics or full text.
341011/24/09
1976E Berkeley Unified School District
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Parties’ ability to rescind collective bargaining agreement provision based on mutual mistake of fact does not create a duty to bargain over a replacement provision. more or view all topics or full text.
3213809/09/08
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
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Demand to meet and confer over negotiable effects of a non-negotiable decision must identify those subjects within the scope of representation impacted by the decision as well as the specific effects over which the union wishes to bargain. Demand letter requesting to bargain over “the impact and effects of requiring tests to be released” failed to identify negotiable subjects or effects and therefore district had no duty to meet and confer with union over effects of test release policy. more or view all topics or full text.
3211507/08/08
1942C Fresno County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
The rule under EERA in Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 223, which holds that while a request to bargain the impact of a decision not within the scope of bargaining does not have to be in a particular form, it must adequately signify the desire to negotiate on a subject within the scope of bargaining, also applies in cases adjudicated under the Trial Court Act.) (Board held the following did not constitute sufficient requests to bargain over the effects of the decision to change a job description for court reporters by including Realtime reporting requirements: (1) steward/court reporter’s statements that she did not agree with the job description; (2) union representative’s email requesting a “formal meet and confer,” because they were not in agreement with the job specification; and (3) union representative’s email stating that the Court’s position that it did not have an obligation to meet and confer was incorrect. more or view all topics or full text.
323801/31/08
1848S State of California (Department of Corrections) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
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.
3015008/09/06
1822E Santee Elementary School District
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
A valid request to negotiate will be found if it adequately indicates a desire to negotiate on a subject within scope. (Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 223.) In this case, STA made a reasoned decision not to demand to barain the adoption of the Board Policy after being given 2 weeks notice of the Board’s intent. Protests over District’s contemplated change is not a demand to bargain. 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.
307202/22/06
1762S State of California (Department of Consumer Affairs)
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Dills Act Section 3515.5 does not provide a right to self-representation. While Wilson-Combs has the right to meet with her employer without the union, the State is not required to meet and confer with her over terms and conditions of employment. more or view all topics or full text.
2912104/15/05
1664M City and County of San Francisco
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Local 790 did not provide any specifics on how the City’s reorganization and relocation of work units impacted terms and conditions of employment or of any attempts to demand bargaining over the impacts. Therefore, the Board dismissed these claims of unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.
2823107/27/04
1481E Berkeley Unified School District * * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Employer’s refusal to allow union representative to attend meeting between teachers and supervisor did not constitute failure to bargain in good faith, since there was no allegation that parties requested to negotiate regarding a matter within the scope of bargaining. more or view all topics or full text.
263307105/15/02
1388S State of California (Department of Corrections)
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
In the event an employer is unsure whether or not a particular subject is negotiable, it is under an obligation to ask the union for its negotiability justification. The very essence of the duty to negotiate in good faith is the effort to reach agreement. A refusal to address proposals which are unclear is inconsistent with the statutory obligation. Such an obligation existed in the present case, where the reorganization altered the supervisory structure of the institution, and affected the level of supervision for bargaining unit members. more or view all topics or full text.
243110705/25/00
A216E San Jose-Evergreen Community College District
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Employer acts at own peril if it refuses to bargain with or recognize the exclusive representative without demonstrating "by objective considerations that it has some reasonable grounds for believing the union has lost its majority status." more or view all topics or full text.
142120310/29/90
1287E Antelope Valley Union High School District
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
While certain terms and conditions of employment survive expiration of the contract, a waiver of the statutory right to bargain does not remain in effect. more or view all topics or full text.
222916809/25/98
1174H Trustees of the California State University (Academic Professionals of California)
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Where contract language clearly and unambiguously provided that parties could not delete any term of contract without written amendment, Board refused to find that contract terms expired when reopened; pp. 6-7. Because contract language precludes the deletion of any term of the contract without written amendment, Board finds it unnecessary to decide whether NLRB decisions in Speedrack, Inc. (1989) 293 NLRB 1054 [131 LRRM 1347] and Hydrologics, Inc. (1989) 293 NLRB 1060 [131 LRRM 1350] apply to public sector labor relations under the HEERA; p. 7. Where contract language clearly and unambiguously provided that parties could not delete any term of contract without written amendment, University's insistence on maintaining status quo did not constitute unilateral change; p. 7; p. 23, proposed dec. constitute unilateral change; p. 7; p. 23, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
212801911/12/96
1053E Rowland Unified School District
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Once impasse is reached either party may refuse to negotiate further and the employer is free to implement changes reasonably comprehended within its last, best and final offer. However, impasse suspends the parties' obligation to bargain only until changed circumstances indicate that an agreement may be possible; p. 7. The duty to bargain revives when one party proposes a concession from its earlier bargaining position which indicates that agreement may be possible; p. 7. The district's duty to resume negotiations following good faith completion of impasse arises only if the association's proposals contain a concession from its earlier position which demonstrates that circumstances have changed and agreement may be possible; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text.
182512609/01/94
1221H Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore)
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Effects bargaining demand need not contain laundry list of all possible effects implicated by a change; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text.
212816109/26/97
0373E Mt. Diablo Unified School District  * * * REVERSED IN PART BY Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
The Association's general request to negotiate the "implementation and effects" of the District's layoff decision was a legally sufficient initial request to negotiate; pp. 21-22. more or view all topics or full text.
81501712/30/83
0307E Delano Joint Union High School District
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Request to negotiate need not be specific or in any particular form. Instead its important for the chargnig party to have signified some desire to negotiate. Citing Newman-Crows Landing PERB Dec. No. 223; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text.
71414605/05/83
0919E Sylvan Union Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M
601.4000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
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.
162301701/07/92