All notes for Subtopic 601.05000 – Other
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A481E | Gompers Preparatory Academy 601.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other Because an employer’s refusal or failure to bargain in good faith during first contract negotiations typically has a more deleterious effect on employee support for the nascent union than it would in a well-established collective bargaining relationship, PERB applies a higher level of scrutiny to bad faith bargaining claims in the context of first-contract negotiations. (pp. 5-6.) In the context of first-contract bargaining, employee disaffection with the union is a natural and probable consequence of the employer’s bad faith bargaining, particularly when accompanied by other unfair practices such as unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment and refusal to provide information to the union. (p. 7.) An employer may not engage in unlawful dilatory bargaining conduct during first contract bargaining so the one-year certification bar will expire without a contract in place, thereby allowing the filing of a decertification petition. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 54 | 10/22/20 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 601.05000: 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. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2648M | City of Arcadia 601.05000: 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. | 44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 601.05000: 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. | 41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2571M | City of San Ramon 601.05000: 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. | 43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2418M | Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority 601.05000: 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. | 39 | 133 | 03/30/15 |
| 2284M | City of Lincoln 601.05000: 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. | 37 | 69 | 09/06/12 |
| 2271M | City of Davis 601.05000: 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. | 37 | 12 | 06/08/12 |
| 2074M | City of Clovis 601.05000: 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. | 33 | 179 | 10/30/09 |
| 1902E | Oakland Unified School District 601.05000: 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. | 31 | 93 | 05/07/07 |
| 1620Ma | Alameda County Medical Center 601.05000: 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. | 28 | 186 | 06/29/04 |
| 1145S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees) 601.05000: 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. | 20 | 27061 | 03/08/96 |
| 0916S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39) 601.05000: 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. | 16 | 23020 | 01/02/92 |