All notes for Subtopic 601.05000 – Other

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2694M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City of Glendale
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
City’s unilateral imposition of a no-strike clause and a bargaining waiver was clearly unlawful. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 6; (Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2015) PERB Decision No. 2418-M, p. 40.) Although the City states that it did not intend to include that language in the City Council’s imposition, it took no action to retract that language or to clarify with the union or bargaining unit employees that the terms were included by mistake. PERB precedents treat this allegation as a per se violation for which the employer’s motive or intent is irrelevant. (San Ramon, supra, PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 14; Fresno, supra, PERB Decision No. 2418-M, pp. 2-3, 15, 37-40.) more or view all topics or full text.
02/03/20
2648M City of Arcadia
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
PERB found the employer committed a per se violation by unilaterally imposing ground rules in advance of negotiations and bargained in bad faith under the totality of the circumstances by inviting a former Association leader to participate in a bargaining meeting without notifying the Association’s official representatives and by making an “exploding” offer without adequate justification, as well as by unilaterally imposing ground rules. more or view all topics or full text.
06/12/19
2523C El Dorado County Superior Court
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
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
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
An employer must segregate or excise from its imposed terms language purporting to ‘establish a memorandum of understanding’ or other agreement, as well as language that is reasonably susceptible to such an interpretation. An employer also cannot impose new terms for a set duration. Unilaterally imposing new terms for a set duration places an obstacle in the path of good faith bargaining. (Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center (2006) 348 NLRB 1116, 1117.) Imposing a duration for new terms is also inconsistent with an employer’s affirmative duty to excise from its imposition any language susceptible to an unlawful interpretation. (Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2015) PERB Decision No. 2418-M, p. 40.) Fresno amended the principles set forth in Rowland Unified School District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1053 and State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2130-S.) more or view all topics or full text.
43606/20/18
2418M Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
The statutory scheme for collective bargaining under the PERB-administered statutes prohibits the unilateral imposition of terms that waive or limit the statutory rights of employees and employee organizations, including the rights to engage in concerted activity and to strike. Employer’s unilateral imposition of unratified tentative agreements providing for no strikes and Separability/savings language did not demonstrate an intent to frustrate negotiations or undermine the authority of the representative, because the tentatively agreed to articles constituted per se violations of the duty to bargain. more or view all topics or full text.
3913303/30/15
2284M City of Lincoln
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
City did not violate MMBA by failing to consider, conduct a vote, or take any other action related to a tentative agreement entered into between the city’s negotiator and the union and ratified by the union’s membership. Failure to take a formal action did not establish violation, where comments of city council members that tentative agreement did not go far enough and that they had directed staff to continue negotiating to reach a comprehensive agreement conveyed city council’s determination not to approve tentative agreement. more or view all topics or full text.
09/06/12
2271M City of Davis
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
By unilaterally cancelling fact-finding and implementing last, best and final offer, City failed to meet its obligation to participate in good faith in impasse resolution procedures. While the parties disagreed as to the manner of presentation to the arbitrator, the City had available two less severe options than canceling the fact-finding. City failed to establish a business necessity for implementing its last, best and final offer, in that it did not declare a fiscal emergency and had reserves sufficient to face projected shortfall. Implementation of furlough plan was reasonably comprehended within employer’s pre-impasse proposals, where plan as implemented changed span of time within which 12 furlough days must be taken from nearly 7 months to slightly over 5 months. more or view all topics or full text.
06/08/12
2074M City of Clovis
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
MMBA section 3505.4 provides that once an impasse has been properly reached, a public agency “may implement its last, best and final offer.” The provision is permissive, not mandatory. The agency is not obligated to implement the last, best, and final offer. No binding agreement existed, as the Union failed to present sufficient evidence that it had tendered a post-impasse acceptance of the City’s last, best, and final offer. Furthermore, even if the Union had shown valid acceptance of the last, best, and final offer, MMBA section 3505.1 requires the agreement be reduced to writing and ratified by the governing agency before it will become binding on the parties. Here, the record was void of any evidence that an agreement was reduced to writing and ratified by the City. more or view all topics or full text.
3317910/30/09
1902E Oakland Unified School District
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
Individual employees do not have standing to allege unilateral change violations. more or view all topics or full text.
319305/07/07
1620Ma Alameda County Medical Center
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
MMBA section 3505 and PERB Regulation 32603(c) only require the employer to meet and confer in good faith with the exclusive representative. There is no parallel mandate with regard to individual employees. While MMBA section 3502 allows individual employees the right to represent themselves in their employment relations with the public agency employer, there is no corresponding provision that requires the employer to negotiate with the individual employee. As only employee organizations may allege unilateral change and the Board lacks authority to adjudicate such an allegation by individual employees, Kimbrough lacks standing to bring this charge. more or view all topics or full text.
2818606/29/04

601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
Superior court was not a local public agency under the MMBA. Because superior court personnel were appointed by the court and subject to the court’s exclusive control they were employees of the court and not of the county, the county was not obligated to bargain under the MMBA with the union representing the employees. Although a closer question, than whether the superior court was a public agency, the municipal court was also not a local agency subject to the MMBA. Because municipal court personnel served at the pleasure of the court administrator and were controlled exclusively by the court, they were employees of the court and not of the county. The county was not obligated to bargain under the MMBA with the union representing the employees. more or view all topics or full text.
1145S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees)
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
The Department of Personnel Administration acts as the Governor's designee and it may delegate the authority to bargain to State agencies or departments at its discretion. Such a delegation is not a subject within the scope of representation and it does not interfere with the State's obligation to bargain in good faith; pp. 5-6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
202706103/08/96
0916S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39)
601.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
Board affirms partial dismissal of charge that DPA failed to bargain in good faith by making a last, best and final offer after being informed Board had issued complaint against DPA based on failure to provide information. more or view all topics or full text.
162302001/02/92