All notes for Subtopic 602.01000 – In General

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2680M County of Santa Clara
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
To demonstrate an unlawful unilateral change, the charging party must show: (1) the employer took action to change policy; (2) the action had a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment; (3) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or opportunity to bargain over the change; and (4) the change in policy concerned a matter within the scope of representation. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.
10/31/19
2701I * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer’s offer to meet and confer with the exclusive representative over the elimination of a stipend after notifying the representative that it would stop making the payments does not ameliorate its unilateral change in past practice. When the exclusive representative first learns of a negotiable change after the decision has been made, by definition, there has been inadequate notice. (p. 56.) more or view all topics or full text.
03/16/20
2701I * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Court employers failed to meet with exclusive representative before issuing written grievance responses, which summarily rejected the grievances on the basis that there had been no MOU violation. In doing so, the courts unilaterally changed policy by repudiating collectively-bargained grievance procedures. (pp. 52-55.) The failure to properly process a single grievance has a generalized effect or continuing impact on bargaining unit members’ terms and conditions of employment if the action is based upon the employer’s belief that it had a contractual right to take the action without negotiating with the union. (p. 54.) more or view all topics or full text.
03/16/20
2701I * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
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.
03/16/20
2701I * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
To state a prima facie case for a unilateral change, the charging party must establish that: (1) the employer took action to change policy, (2) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation, (3) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or opportunity to bargain over the change, and (4) the action had a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment. (pp. 46-47.) more or view all topics or full text.
03/16/20
2701I * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
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.
03/16/20
2694M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City of Glendale
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Because the MMBA required the City to provide notice and an opportunity to meet and confer before contracting out work previously performed by bargaining unit classifications, and the union did not waive its right to bargain over contracting out such work, the City violated its obligation to bargain subcontracting as required under the MMBA. The subcontracting of bargaining unit work had a continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment and diminished the collective strength of the employees’ ability to deal effectively with the employer. (Arcohe Union School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 360, pp. 5-6; see also City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 38.) This conduct was a per se violation of the City’s duty to bargain in good faith. more or view all topics or full text.
02/03/20
2694M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City of Glendale
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
An employer’s unilateral change violates the duty to bargain in good faith where: (1) the employer took action to change existing policy; (2) the policy change concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or opportunity to bargain over the change; and (4) the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment. (City of Davis (2016) PERB Decision No. 2494-M, p. 18, citing Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2262, p. 9.) In order to satisfy the first element, a charging party generally must show at least one of the following: (1) changes to the parties’ written agreements; (2) changes in established past practices; or (3) newly created policies, or application or enforcement of an existing policy in a new way. (County of Monterey (2018) PERB Decision No. 2579-M, p. 10; Pasadena Area Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2444, p. 12, fn. 12; Davis, supra, PERB Decision No. 2494-M, pp. 30-31.) more or view all topics or full text.
02/03/20
2579M County of Monterey
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Absent a clear and unmistakable waiver of the union’s right to bargain, an employer may not unilaterally add new terms to an existing collective bargaining agreement or adopt or enforce new rules of conduct where previously none had existed. This prohibition extends to the enforcement of existing rules. An employer’s more stringent enforcement of an existing policy constitutes a different term or condition of employment for which notice and opportunity to bargain is necessary. (Venture Packaging (1989) 294 NLRB 544, 550; Fry Foods, Inc., supra, 241 NLRB 76, 93; Master Slack (1977) 230 NLRB 1054, 1055-1056.) more or view all topics or full text.
433307/20/18
2579M County of Monterey
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Absent a clear and unmistakable waiver of the union’s right to bargain, an employer may not unilaterally add new terms to an existing collective bargaining agreement or adopt or enforce new rules of conduct where previously none had existed. This prohibition extends to the enforcement of existing rules. An employer’s more stringent enforcement of an existing policy constitutes a different term or condition of employment for which notice and opportunity to bargain is necessary. (Venture Packaging (1989) 294 NLRB 544, 550; Fry Foods, Inc., supra, 241 NLRB 76, 93; Master Slack (1977) 230 NLRB 1054, 1055-1056.) more or view all topics or full text.
433307/20/18
2659M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
An employer’s unilateral change violates the duty to bargain in good faith where: (1) the employer took action to change existing policy; (2) the policy change concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or opportunity to bargain over the change; and (4) the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment. In order to satisfy the first element, a charging party generally must show at least one of the following: (1) changes to the parties’ written agreements; (2) changes in established past practices; or (3) newly created policies, or application or enforcement of an existing policy in a new way. Where County and County Hospital Authority began using contract medical assistants to staff newly-opened clinics, without notifying the union or giving it an opportunity to bargain, County and County Hospital Authority at least implemented a new policy, and/or applied existing policy in a new way. more or view all topics or full text.
08/06/19
2684E Modoc County Office of Education
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
To establish a prima facie case of an unlawful unilateral change, the charging party must show: (1) the employer took action to change policy; (2) the change in policy concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or opportunity to bargain over the change; and (4) the action has a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment. (pp. 9-10.)PERB has recognized three general categories of unilateral changes: (1) changes to the parties’ written agreement; (2) changes in established past practice; and (3) newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (p. 9.)Reductions in work hours constitute a change in policy. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.
11/27/19
2648M City of Arcadia
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
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
2615M County of Kern
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A change in policy generally falls into one of three categories: (1) changes to the parties’ written agreements; (2) changes in established past practices; or (3) newly created policies, or application or enforcement of an existing policy in a new way. (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text.
4310912/21/18
2609I San Francisco County Superior Court and Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The unilateral change test is equally applicable to unilateral repudiations by an employer or by an employee organization. more or view all topics or full text.
439912/18/18
2524M Salinas Valley Memorial Heatlhcare System
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
In a unilateral change case, a policy may be established by written agreement, written employer rules or regulations, or regular and consistent past practice. more or view all topics or full text.
4115403/21/17
2524M Salinas Valley Memorial Heatlhcare System
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A change in certification does not relieve the employer of its duty to maintain the status quo until such time as it reaches an agreement with the new union or a lawful impasse occurs. more or view all topics or full text.
4115403/21/17
2524M Salinas Valley Memorial Heatlhcare System
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
PERB has always recognized newly created, implemented or enforced policy as subject to its unilateral action doctrine. more or view all topics or full text.
4115403/21/17
2524M Salinas Valley Memorial Heatlhcare System
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Although employer was obligated to meet and confer over its rebidding policy after union demanded to bargain, the employer did not commit a unilateral change by proceeding with a rebid that was consistent with its past practice. more or view all topics or full text.
4115403/21/17
2518E Los Angeles Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Whether employer’s policy represented a change from an identifiable past practice or was an implementation of new policy is not important because in either event, the Board analyzes liability under the unilateral change doctrine. more or view all topics or full text.
4114603/06/17
2505M City of Roseville
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Although per se violations may also serve as indicia of bad faith in support of a surface bargaining allegation, there was no evidence that the City’s unilateral change to the employer paid member contribution, which was unilaterally imposed post-impasse, had contributed to the breakdown in pre-impasse negotiations or had undermined IBEW’s authority during the prior negotiations. Although the Board ordered the City to remedy the unilateral change violation, it dismissed the complaint’s separate bad-faith bargaining allegation where no other probative evidence of bad faith had been presented and the City’s unilateral change occurred after negotiations had already broken down. (p. 36.) more or view all topics or full text.
419711/30/16
2464M City of San Diego * * * Decision upheld on appeal to the California Supreme Court (8/2/2018); limited review of remedial order on remand. * * *
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A unilateral change occurs when an employer an employer makes a firm decision to change policy affecting an negotiable subject without providing the employees’ representative with notice or opportunity for bargaining. The date of the decision triggers liability, even if the change itself is not scheduled to take effect until a later date or never takes effect. Mayor’s announcement in State of the City speech and various official press conferences of plans to alter employee pension benefits through a citizens’ initiative constituted firm decision to alter policy on a negotiable subject. more or view all topics or full text.
4010812/29/15
2431M County of Santa Clara
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The reversal or rescission of a unilateral change does not excuse or cure the alleged violation or otherwise render it moot where the respondent maintains that it has the right to repeat the complained-of conduct. Where, as here, the respondent asserts that its conduct was authorized by the collective bargaining agreement, the charging party has demonstrated that the alleged unilateral change had a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment for the purpose of stating a prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text.
3918106/10/15
2321M County of Santa Clara
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The union has alleged prima facie that by imposing a mandatory, new background evaluation procedure upon existing employees who had already been subjected to a similar procedure prior to initial employment, the County made a unilateral change in derogation of its MMBA duty to meet and confer with the union over the decision itself as well as the foreseeable effects thereof on matters within the scope of representation. (To challenge a unilateral change a union need not plead or prove that it demanded to bargain. An employer’s unilateral action renders bargaining futile.) (The Board overrules State of California (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Avenal State Prison) (2011) PERB Decision No. 2196-S, Sylvan Union Elementary School District (1992) PERB Decision No. 919 and other Board decisions holding that a union must first demand to bargain effects as a precondition to enforcing an employer’s duty to provide a union reasonable advance notice and an opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects within the scope of representation of an otherwise non-negotiable decision. more or view all topics or full text.
383007/25/13
2388M City of Palo Alto * * * SUPERCEDED by City of Palo Alto (2017) PERB Decision No. 2388a-M
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
MMBA section 3507 prescribes a different scope of consultation from that under section 3505, because in section 3507, the Legislature stated with particularity those subjects for consultation. A policy change subject to the duty to meet and confer and implemented without meeting and conferring, is a fait accompli, which, if left in place, would compel the union to “bargain back” to the status quo and make impossible the give and take that are the essence of good faith consultation. A party seeking to meet and confer initiates the process by making a request therefor. The request need not be stated in particular terms, but must place the responding party on notice of the subject over which discussions are sought. The requirement of a request to bargain was a low threshold, designed not for gamesmanship, but merely to assure that an employer would not be found in violation of its statutory duty to negotiate in the absence of notice that its employees through their representatives desired to bargain. It is ultimately the employer’s awareness of an employee organization’s desire to bargain which is crucial. While typically we infer such awareness, or lack thereof, from the words used in the employee organization’s negotiating demand, such awareness may exist apart from the employee organization’s demand. In such a case, it is appropriate to enforce the employer’s duty to negotiate notwithstanding the words chosen by the organization. Whether an employer is aware of an employee organization’s desire to bargain is to be determined from the facts on a case-by-case basis. Where an employer believes that the subject over which an employee organization desires to meet and confer exceeds the employer’s duty to meet and confer, or an employer is otherwise in doubt as to its meet and confer obligation, the employer must seek clarification. Such clarification should occur within the meet and confer process, not merely by the exchange of legal positions through correspondence or in comments between party representatives at public meetings of the governing authority of the agency. Upon receiving the union’s request or becoming aware of the union’s wish to meet, the City’s obligation was to offer to meet and discuss the City’s position that the issue on which the union sought to meet was beyond the scope of representation. A party subject to the duty to meet and confer in good faith must fulfill its duty to meet and confer in good faith before changing a matter within the scope of representation. A party subject to the duty to meet and confer in good faith may not resort to “self-help” until after exhausting its meet and confer duty. In The People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Association et al., v. City of Seal Beach et al. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 591, the Supreme Court held that the MMBA duty to meet and confer in good faith is a matter of statewide concern and as such prevails over local enactments of a charter city concerning matters that might otherwise be deemed a strictly municipal affair. In The People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Association et al., v. City of Seal Beach et al. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 591, the court reasoned that a charter city employer could not avoid its MMBA meet and confer obligations by exercise of its right to propose charter amendments. Rather, a charter city, like the City here, must comply with its MMBA obligation before referring to voters for approval of a ballot measure on a subject over which the charter city was obliged by MMBA to meet and confer. more or view all topics or full text.
392508/06/14
2300H Regents of the University of California
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The Board has long recognized the harm to collective bargaining caused by an employer’s unilateral actions with respect to negotiable terms and conditions of employment. Unilateral action by an employer without prior discussion with the union does amount to a refusal to negotiate about the affected conditions of employment and must of necessity obstruct bargaining. It will often disclose an unwillingness to agree with the union. It will rarely be justified by any reason of substance. It follows that the Board may hold such unilateral action to be an unfair labor practice without also finding the employer guilty of over-all subjective bad faith. (Pajaro Valley Unified School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 51; NLRB v. Katz (1962) 369 U.S. 736.) To prove up a unilateral change, the charging party must establish that: (1) the employer took action to change policy; (2) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or opportunity to bargain over the change; (4) the action had a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment. (Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2262.) An employer may neither unilaterally add new terms to nor repudiate provisions in an existing collective bargaining agreement. The duty to refrain from taking unilateral action concerning negotiable terms and conditions of employment applies in all stages of the collective bargaining process, including during negotiation of successor collective bargaining agreements. more or view all topics or full text.
12/20/12
2351M City of Sacramento
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
When an exclusive representative becomes aware of a proposed change after the employer has implemented it, any notice to negotiate is inadequate. The employer violated its duty to bargain by making a firm decision to transfer bargaining unit work and layoff unit employees, and by using direct communications with unit employees to implement that decision, without providing the exclusive representative with adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to bargain. more or view all topics or full text.
3810412/24/13
2380M City of Selma
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The City unilaterally changed matters within scope of representation when it imposed its LBFO requiring employees to contribute to CalPERS, and when it rescinded furloughs without having reached a bona fide impasse in negotiations. more or view all topics or full text.
391106/27/14
2231Ma Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Failure by the Board to include in its decision fact that the respondent subsequently offered to meet and confer after a unilateral change had already occurred did not constitute a prejudicial error of fact because the later reversal or rescission of a unilateral action or subsequent negotiation on the subject of a unilateral action does not cure the violation. more or view all topics or full text.
3618505/23/12
2213E Palomar Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A side letter is an agreement between an employer and union that typically: (1) modifies, clarifies or interprets an existing provision in an MOU; or (2) addresses issues of interest to the parties that are not otherwise covered by the MOU. At its most basic, a side letter is a contract between the parties. As such, the duration of such an agreement is dictated by the provisions of the side letter itself (either express or implied) or by the subsequent conduct of the parties. Consequently, absent a provision in an MOU, an agreement between the parties or other evidence demonstrating the parties intended it to expire, a side letter does not automatically expire upon the ratification of a subsequently negotiated MOU. more or view all topics or full text.
366910/27/11
2271M City of Davis
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
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
2242M County of Sonoma
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
MOU did not establish a written agreement to pay the same amount for retiree health insurance benefits as employer pays for current bargaining unit employees. Where evidence failed to establish that employer had an unequivocal, clearly enunciated and acted upon, and readily ascertainable past practice, accepted by both parties, of linking retiree health insurance benefits to the benefits received by current bargaining unit employees, charging party did not met its burden of proving a unilateral change in an established past practice, and prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change was not established. more or view all topics or full text.
3613102/29/12
2238M City of San Juan Capistrano
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral changes are considered “per se” violations if certain criteria are met. Those criteria are: (1) the employer breached or altered the parties’ written agreement or past practice; (2) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the action is not merely an isolated incident, but amounts to a change of policy (i.e., having a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text.
3612502/24/12
2210S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Court rulings that the Dills Act does not limit the Legislature’s authority to enact unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment are dispositive on issue of whether state unlawfully implemented plan to furlough state employees in specially funded agencies pursuant to Governor’s executive orders that were ratified by the Legislature. more or view all topics or full text.
366410/13/11
2196S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Avenal State Prison) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
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.
363008/12/11
2173M County of Sonoma
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
MOU did not establish a written agreement to link retiree health insurance benefits to current bargaining unit employees. Where evidence failed to establish that employer had an unequivocal, clearly enunciated and acted upon, and readily ascertainable past practice, accepted by both parties, of linking retiree health insurance benefits to the benefits received by current bargaining unit employees, charging party did not met its burden of proving a unilateral change in an established past practice, and prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change was not established. more or view all topics or full text.
356103/01/11
2156S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Corcoran State Prison)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charge failed to state a prima facie case of unilateral change because it did not allege facts establishing that institution management had negotiated bidding of new positions with the local chapter president in the past. more or view all topics or full text.
352601/19/11
2160E Sonoma County Office of Education
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charge failed to state a prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change when the employer deducted the amount of a health benefits premium increase from employees’ paychecks during negotiations following expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. The expired agreement set the employer’s contribution rate; it did not require the employer to maintain a certain level of health benefits. Thus, the employer did not alter the status quo by failing to pay the premium increase. more or view all topics or full text.
353302/01/11
2152S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
No violation of the Dills Act where the Legislature ratified the Governor’s initial furlough plan when it adopted the Budget Act. The Dills Act does not limit the Legislature’s authority to enact unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment. The Governor does not commit an unlawful unilateral change by implementing changes to terms and conditions of State employment in compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process. more or view all topics or full text.
351712/16/10
2145M West Contra Costa Healthcare District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer’s requirement that incumbent union’s non-employee organizers sign in and wear an identification badge to access non-public areas of the employer’s hospital during an election campaign had a de minimis impact on the union’s access rights. Under Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont, the requirement did not have a significant and adverse effect on a subject within the scope of representation and thus the employer had no duty to meet and confer before adopting and implementing the requirement. No unilateral change in access rights when the employer never imposed a requirement that organizers be escorted by a staff member nor limited the areas to which the incumbent union had access. more or view all topics or full text.
35511/30/10
2143M Omnitrans
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer committed an illegal unilateral change in the grievance procedure where it refused to process a grievance filed by the union in its own name. Under the MMBA a union has a statutory right to file a grievance in its own name that can only be limited by clear and unmistakable waiver. The Board found that the parties’ MOU did not contain a “clear and unmistakable prescription that an individual employee must be the grievant, or a clear and unmistakable proscription that the Union itself may not be the grievant.” more or view all topics or full text.
3417111/18/10
2144M West Side Healthcare District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charging party’s claims that employer created a point system for absences, late calls or tardiness, reduced the level of benefits that employees would receive, and made changes to the merit pay policy were insufficient to establish a prima facie case for illegal unilateral change. Charge failed to include facts setting forth the original policies or procedures and/or how the new procedures were different from the originals. This information is essential to charging party’s claim. It is a charging party’s responsibility to allege a “clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice charge.” Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text.
35611/30/10
2139M City of Alhambra * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2663-M and County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Three-part test established in Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623 applies to determine whether a matter is within the scope of representation under the MMBA: (1) Does the management action have a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees. If not, there is no duty to meet and confer. (2) Does the significant and adverse effect arise from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision. If not, then the meet and confer requirement applies. (3) If both factors are present, the Board applies a balancing test. The action is within the scope of representation only if the employer’s need for unencumbered decisionmaking in managing its operations is outweighed by the benefit to employer-employee relations of bargaining about the action in question. more or view all topics or full text.
3416010/26/10
2125M County of Fresno
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. County’s erroneous publication of personnel rules including a copy of the policy suggesting that BU 31 was exempt from the policy was not sufficient to show that the Board of Supervisors had in fact amended the policy to exempt BU 31. The implementation of furloughs represented the application of the existing policy. Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate that implementation of furloughs was a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. Past practice will only be considered when necessary to determine an ambiguous policy. Past practice does not trump a clear established policy. Failure to enforce a policy does not mean an employer is forever precluded from doing so. Union argument that the parties bargaining history and past practice show that the MOU between the parties is plagued by mistake of fact is misplaced where the issue before PERB is not bad faith bargaining, but is the allegation of unilateral change of a County policy that is not set forth in the MOU. more or view all topics or full text.
3412208/11/10
2101H Regents of the University of California (Davis)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Notice of a proposed change must be given to an official of the union who has the authority to act on behalf of the organization. Therefore, notice will not be imputed to a union on the basis of notice to one or even several members of the bargaining unit if those employers lack authority to act in an official capacity on behalf of the union. more or view all topics or full text.
345503/01/10
2101H Regents of the University of California (Davis)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A contract breach can support a unilateral change claim when the breaching party asserts that the contract authorizes its conduct. In addition, contract breaches may also support unilateral change claims when there is a change in policy that is generally applicable to future situations. more or view all topics or full text.
345503/01/10
2084H Regents of the University of California (Los Angles)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
When an employer owes a duty to meet and discuss, the employer must consider the exclusive representative’s proposals but is not bound to attempt in good faith to reach a negotiated written agreement. Although the Board determines whether an employer has satisfied this obligation on a case-by-case basis, it recognizes the following three touchstones in its analysis: (1) notice before the employer’s decision is final or implemented, (2) reasonable time and opportunity for meeting and discussing, between the notice and the final decision or implementation, and (3) good faith conduct in listening to and considering proposals. more or view all topics or full text.
342012/14/09
2092E Desert Sands Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral changes are considered “per se” violations if certain criteria are met. Those criteria are: (1) the employer breached or altered the parties’ written agreement or past practice; (2) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the action is not merely an isolated incident, but amounts to a change of policy (i.e., having a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text.
343902/01/10
2092E Desert Sands Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
In general, transfers of work from employees in one bargaining unit to employees in another are negotiable. Similarly, transfers of work from one classification to another within the same bargaining unit are also negotiable. Notwithstanding the general rule, not all transfers of work are negotiable. Where unit and non-unit employees perform overlapping duties, an employer does not violate its duty to negotiate in good faith merely by increasing the quantity of work which non-unit employees perform and decreasing the quantity of work which unit employees perform. This exception, however, does not apply where, as a result of the transfer, unit employees ceased performing duties that they previously performed, or non-unit employees began performing duties that were previously exclusively performed by unit employees. more or view all topics or full text.
343902/01/10
1876Ha Trustees of the California State University
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
In order to establish an unlawful unilateral change, the charging party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) the employer breached or altered the parties’ written agreement or past practice; (2) such action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the change was not merely an isolated breach of the contract, but amounts to a change of policy (i.e., has a generalized effect or continuing impact upon the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text.
337304/15/09
2115S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of Personnel Administration)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charge fails to allege sufficient facts to establish that the State violated its duty to bargain by implementing layoff, while it continued to bargain for three more weeks after implementation. 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.
349906/10/10
2110S State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Department’s decision to close veterans home’s acute care unit and layoff acute care employees did not constitute unlawful unilateral change. The decision 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. more or view all topics or full text.
349006/01/10
2112I Los Angeles Superior Court
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The charge failed to state a prima facie case for unlawful unilateral change, where the union alleged changes in practice by eliminating nine regular court interpreter assignments and leaving vacancies in daily as-needed assignments unfilled. The Court Interpreter Act specifically provides that the “delivery of court services” is outside the scope of representation, and the Board has held that an employer’s determination of staff or service levels is not within the scope of representation. A matter outside scope does not become a mandatory subject of bargaining because the parties negotiate over it or even reach an agreement. more or view all topics or full text.
349406/07/10
2109H Regents of the University of California
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Where the charge alleged the employer violated past practice regarding sick leave verification and approval for vacation leave, a bare allegation that the relevant practices were “well established” was insufficient for purposes of alleging a prima facie case. The charge must allege facts to demonstrate the past practice. more or view all topics or full text.
348305/19/10
2103M City of San Diego (Office of the City Attorney) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer’s “attempt” to change a policy is insufficient to establish a prima facie case for illegal unilateral change without offering to meet and confer with the union. more or view all topics or full text.
346303/26/10
2105H Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 )
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
PERB is prohibited from enforcement of agreements between the parties and may only issue a complaint where the breach of the agreement also constitutes an unfair practice violation. In order to constitute an unfair practice violation, the conduct must amount to a change in policy. Where University alleged the union violated the campus access policy by leafleting in prohibited areas, but no facts are alleged to demonstrate more than an isolated breach of the CBA, the charge failed to establish a prima facie case for a unilateral change violation. more or view all topics or full text.
347304/21/10
2104M County of Mendocino
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
No violation where employer retracted 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error. Employee classifications that moved to a new bargaining unit were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. Employer correction of the error, resulting in the cessation of the increase to classifications no longer covered by the MOUs, does not amount to a change in policy where the classifications were not entitled to the increase, and where the employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit. No violation where charge alleged unilateral change when employer sought to recoup overpayments based on rescission of salary increases, where the employer in reasonably short order desisted from collection of overpaid compensation and no evidence demonstrated a change of generalized effect or continuing impact. more or view all topics or full text.
347404/21/10
2100M County of Sonoma
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charging party failed to establish that the terms and conditions of employment implemented post-impasse deviated in any significant way from the proposals presented or discussed during negotiations. Although employer changed some of the contract language in its final implementation, all of the changes were reasonably comprehended within the employer’s pre-impasse proposals. Accordingly, charging party failed to establish a violation of the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text.
345402/25/10
2001M Omnitrans
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral changes are considered “per se” violations if: (1) the employer breaches or alters the parties’ written agreement or its own established past practice; (2) such action is taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the change is not merely an isolated breach of the contract, but amounts to a change of policy (i.e., it has a generalized effect or continuing impact upon bargaining unit members’ terms and conditions of employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text.
333401/30/09
2085S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charge failed to state prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change because the State had no obligation to bargain over legislative proposal to change method of overtime calculation for State employees or implementation of enacted legislation by DPA. The Legislature may enact a change to terms and conditions of State employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would constitute an unfair practice. Dills Act section 3517.8(a) does not preclude the Legislature from enacting a change to terms and conditions of State employment during the period between expiration of an MOU and the parties’ reaching a successor agreement or impasse. The Governor is not required to bargain with State employee unions before taking action pursuant to his constitutional role as a participant in the legislative process. DPA does not commit an unlawful unilateral change by implementing changes to terms and conditions of State employment in compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process. more or view all topics or full text.
342412/22/09
2070H Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
No prima facie case of unilateral change when charge failed to establish that employer removed bargaining unit work from unit members or that nonunit employees began performing duties previously performed exclusively by unit members. Charge also failed to establish that any reallocation of bargaining unit work had a negotiable effect on unit members’ terms and conditions of employment. more or view all topics or full text.
3317310/15/09
2057E San Francisco Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charging party failed to allege sufficient facts to show that issuance of a “Principal’s Expectations” memorandum constituted a unilateral change in the working conditions of teachers. more or view all topics or full text.
3314508/28/09
2048E San Francisco Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313-E
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
No prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change because the change did not concern a matter within the scope of representation. Employees’ reporting location is not within the scope of representation under EERA and the charge did not establish that the employer’s decision to change employees’ reporting location had any actual effect on subjects within the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text.
3312306/30/09
2044M County of Sacramento
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The Board found that the County unilaterally changed the eligibility criteria for current employees-future retirees’ participation in the Retiree Health Insurance Program/Retiree Medical and Dental Insurance Program by discontinuing subsidies for medical and dental insurance for employees retiring after June 1, 2007, in violation of the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text.
3312606/30/09
2045M County of Sacramento
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The Board found that the County unilaterally changed the eligibility criteria for current employees-future retirees’ participation in the Retiree Health Insurance Program/Retiree Medical and Dental Insurance Program by discontinuing subsidies for medical and dental insurance for employees retiring after June 1, 2007, in violation of the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text.
3312706/30/09
2043M County of Sacramento
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The Board found that the County unilaterally changed the eligibility criteria for current employees-future retirees’ participation in the Retiree Health Insurance Program/Retiree Medical and Dental Insurance Program by discontinuing subsidies for medical and dental insurance for employees retiring after June 1, 2007, in violation of the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text.
3312206/30/09
2030M Omnitrans
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Memorandum of understanding was silent regarding union’s right to access employees in the drivers’ assembly room. The parties’ past practice was to allow union officers to meet individually with drivers about union matters in the assembly room without obtaining prior permission. The employer’s rule requiring the union to obtain prior permission to access employees in the assembly room altered the parties’ past practice and thus its implementation of the rule without providing the union with an opportunity to meet and confer over the change constituted an unlawful unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.
339105/29/09
2027M City of Riverside
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Pursuant to a written grievance settlement, the employer promoted part-time mini-bus drivers to higher time base positions based on seniority. The parties later executed a memorandum of understanding that by its terms superseded all side letters except “grievance resolutions documents.” The language of the MOU, viewed in light of the parties’ bargaining history, showed the MOU did not supersede the grievance settlement. Because the settlement agreement remained in effect, the employer made an unlawful unilateral change when it applied the promotion criteria contained in the MOU to mini-bus drivers without providing the union with notice or an opportunity to request to meet and confer over the change. more or view all topics or full text.
339705/19/09
2002E Long Beach Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
School district employer unilaterally imposed a 4/10 workweek on classified employees during two summer months. Contract language giving employer right to change particular employee’s shift for “compelling business necessity” did not give employer right to unilaterally change workday from eight to ten hours for all employees. more or view all topics or full text.
333601/30/09
1960M South Placer Fire Protection District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral removal of a classification and its accompanying work from the bargaining unit during the term of the collective bargaining agreement is a per se violation of the duty to meet and confer in good faith. The District committed a per se violation of the duty to meet and confer in good faith by unilaterally removing the Fire Marshall classification, and its accompanying work, from the bargaining unit without providing the Union an opportunity to meet and confer over the reclassification. more or view all topics or full text.
329606/10/08
1978S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The Dills Act does not preclude the Legislature from enacting terms and conditions of employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would have been an unfair practice if not negotiated. DPA's implementation of the alternate retirement program amounted to the State's compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process and not unilateral implementation of a change in policy on the part of the State as employer. The State did not commit an unlawful unilateral change in policy by virtue of the Governor's signing SB 1105 into law, because in signing the legislation the Governor was carrying out a function directed by the California Constitution. When the Governor is acting as a participant in the legislative process and is fulfilling his/her constitutional responsibilities, those acts are to be viewed separate and apart from his/her responsibilities as chief executive and employer of State employees. The Governor's role in considering and signing legislation, as prescribed in the California Constitution, does not amount to a unilateral change in policy by the State. more or view all topics or full text.
3214809/26/08
1967S State of California (Department of Corrections)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The State did not have a duty to negotiate about the decision to implement a new review process even though the decision impacted wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. When the right of the State to manage its operations and achieve its mission by providing constitutionally required health care for inmates in the California prison system is balanced against the benefits to be achieved under the duty to bargain the decision with the union, the balance tipped in favor of the State. more or view all topics or full text.
3210906/27/08
1926H Trustees of the California State University
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The decision to implement a computer resource policy is a managerial prerogative and not negotiable. The Board distinguished this case from Trustees of the California State University (2003) PERB Decision No. 1507-H wherein the Board held that the subject matter within the policy fell within the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text.
3115210/31/07
1932M City and County of San Francisco (International Airport)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The reassignment of an employee, a construction project manager, to oversee a different project did not constitute a unilateral change of the City’s “transfer” or “reassignment” policy. more or view all topics or full text.
321412/21/07
1915M County of Sierra
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral changes are considered “per se” violations if: (1) the employer implemented a change in policy concerning a matter within the scope of representation, and (2) the change was implemented before the employer notified the exclusive representative and gave it an opportunity to request negotiations. Thus, a charging party fails to establish a prima facie case for unilateral change when the proposed change was not implemented. more or view all topics or full text.
06/27/07
1895E Newark Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Although the collective bargaining agreement language waives the right to negotiate the health carrier, with the parties agreeing instead to consult, the Compensation Article was subject to negotiation during the 2003-2004 school year negotiations as a re-opener. Since the health care carrier language in dispute is part of the Compensation Article, the District should have negotiated the Association's re-opener proposal related to health carriers, even though the proposal did not include an express repudiation of the contract’s waiver language. more or view all topics or full text.
317803/27/07
1863E El Centro Elementary School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A permissive subject is not transformed into a mandatory subject solely on the basis that it is incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, it is not an unfair practice for an employer to repudiate a contractual provision containing a permissive subject of bargaining because the employer does not have a duty under EERA to negotiate that term. more or view all topics or full text.
311011/13/06
1886H Trustees of the California State University
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
There was no binding past practice of allowing released time for employees to attend PERB proceedings and therefore, the complaint that CSU violated HEERA by committing a unilateral change was dismissed. The Board’s holding in Willits Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 912 (that the District violated EERA when it failed to grant paid released time to a union representative to attend a PERB settlement conference concerning an unfair practice charge) was not determinative here. In this case, the record does not indicate that the informal conference was an extension of the parties' negotiations, as was the case in Willits. A mistaken, or at least unintentional, beneficial practice does not prevent the employer from subsequently reverting to strict enforcement of the applicable terms of the parties' collective agreement. more or view all topics or full text.
316502/20/07
1866H Trustees of the California State University (Humboldt)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charging party’s allegation that the University violated the contract in implementing layoff provisions, re-hire procedures and a layoff settlement agreement were reviewed as unilateral change violations. The charging party, as an individual employee, did not have standing to pursue these charges. more or view all topics or full text.
312612/14/06
1849M County of Santa Cruz
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charging party failed to state a prima facie case of a unilateral change because County did not make unilateral change when it provided the information requested by the Association in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement; County also did not make unilateral change because it did in fact meet with the Association about layoff alternatives. County may have contemplated changing the hours of employees, but no employee hours were actually altered, therefore the Charging party failed to state a prima facie case of unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.
3015108/16/06
1839H Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority (2019) PERB Decision No. 2659-M
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
There is no duty to bargain where Respondent did not transfer bargaining unit work out of the unit or substitute one group of employees for another. There was no evidence that any unit employees ever performed work at that campus. That some student housing services at other campuses were performed by bargaining unit employees does not of itself mandate that housing services be performed by bargaining at this campus. more or view all topics or full text.
3011805/12/06
1825M County of Riverside
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral change found. The parties negotiated and adopted a mutually agreeable process to resolve disputes over the grievability of the subject matter of grievances. Then, the County refused to abide by the language and refer issues of grievability to the State Mediation and Conciliation Service on 7 to10 grievances not including the one forming the basis of the charge. County rejected the proposals. more or view all topics or full text.
307803/01/06
1761M City of Whittier
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Although internally inconsistent, under various procedures and rules, the Department Heads, not employees, are authorized to determine whether overtime is compensated via compensatory time off or overtime pay. Therefore, the City has not unilaterally changed an existing policy. more or view all topics or full text.
2911904/08/05
1725E Hilmar Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The District did not unilaterally change health benefits. The memo to employees asking the employees to select between two health plan options itself did not constitute a change. Also, once the District was told the tentative agreement had not been ratified, the District stopped implementation of the plan. more or view all topics or full text.
293512/15/04
1682E Desert Sands Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The Board has long held that a transfer of unit work from one group of employees to another to be within the scope of representation. The installation of covert cameras was identified as an essential job function on the ERT job description, a document negotiated by the parties and approved by the District’s board and personnel commission and thus not a “function not previously performed” and thereby within managerial prerogative.) Under Eureka City School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 481 (Eureka), transfers of unit work are negotiable where unit employees cease performing duties that they previously performed or non-unit employees begin to perform duties that were previously exclusively performed by unit employees. As the District has completely removed the covert camera installation function from ERTs, these facts fit within the first prong of Eureka. Transfer of unit work between classifications within the same unit is also negotiable. (Desert Sands Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1468.) more or view all topics or full text.
2824108/25/04
1672H Trustees of the California State University
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The policies on their face did not exhibit a change in policy concerning employee privacy rights, the requirement for employee cooperation during the investigation of a whistleblower retaliation complaint, or the right to union representation. Trustees of the California State University (2004) PERB Decision No. 1658-H involves nearly identical facts and is dispositive of this case. Executive Order 644, issued in 1997, has been superseded by Executive Order 822 and is no longer in effect. CFA failed to provide examples of unlawful implementation and thus did not state a prima facie case of unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.
2821708/06/04
1635H Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A change in the performance evaluation and overall rating procedure to include 2 new categories and a different weighting scale, which differed from any previous system used at the campus constitutes a change. more or view all topics or full text.
2815806/04/04
1608M City and County of San Francisco
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
There is no obligation on either party to negotiate over permissive subjects of bargaining. However, once an agreement is reached regarding a permissive subject and it is embodied in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, the parties are bound to that agreement for its duration. Once the agreement expires there is no obligation to adhere to the agreement or bargain a new one. more or view all topics or full text.
2813903/22/04
1519H Regents of the University of California (Los Alamos National Laboratory)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Enter, as an individual employee, lacked standing to allege a unilateral change by the employer for denying her a choice of representative in a disciplinary hearing. more or view all topics or full text.
276705/07/03
1507H Trustees of the California State University
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A policy restricting APC’s use of CSU e-mail to communicate with employees, an existing practice that was acknowledged by CSU, clearly changes the status quo. CSU’s computer usage policies embody comprehensive rules on the use of computer resources, violation of which is grounds for discipline. These policies thus affect “unilateral implementation of a sweeping set of rules . . . .of the ‘quantity and kind’” that alter the status quo as set forth in the 1960 policy and Govt. Code section 8314. (Oakland Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 367.) CSU’s new telephone and facsimile policy constitute a departure from the restrictions on telephone usage found in Government Code section 8314. The new grounds for discipline in the policy are also inconsistent with section 8314 and CSU’s 1960 policy. CSU’s new telephone and facsimile policy improve upon CSU’s 1960 policy, which prohibits use of state facilities, equipment or supplies for other than the performance of official business. Employers may not make unilateral changes to increase benefits, as well as reduce benefits. more or view all topics or full text.
272601/08/03
1440E Lucia Mar Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral change found where school employer unlawfully failed to negotiate over its decision to replace its transportation employees with those of contractor, where district kept same basic transportation system in place and offered same basic transportation services to students of district. No need to apply further test about labor costs to determine decision is negotiable. more or view all topics or full text.
253207305/24/01
1402E Antelope Valley Union High School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
District's decision to phase out full time position at a particular school represents a legitimate change in the nature, direction or level of service and is non-negotiable based on several factors: (1) the decision was made well before its decision to create and fill part-time positions at that school; (2) the decision is consistent with the District's past practice is a pattern of several years' duration of leaving full-time food service positions vacant when the incumbent retired; (3) the District made the decision not to fill the full-time position at Quartz Hill independently of its decision to add a pizza machine and staff it appropriately; and (4) the decision to add the part-time positions was made in order to implement the District's non-negotiable decision to provide a different type of service to patrons by opening a pizza parlor; due to the operating requirements of the pizza machine, a particular staffing configuration was needed in order to appropriately serve customers. more or view all topics or full text.
243114509/05/00
1470H Trustees of the California State University
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Failure to reach an agreement in reopener negotiations does not render the reopened contract provisions null and void. Universities actions in raising pay were consistent with the parties’ memorandum of understanding and therefore not a unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.
263301612/05/01
1374S State of California (Department of Youth Authority)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Under section 3519(c), the State is obligated to meet and negotiate in good faith with a recognized representative about matters within the scope of representation. This section precludes an employer from making changes in the status quo without giving notice of its action to the appropriate exclusive representative. (Anaheim City School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 364; Pittsburg Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 199.) In addition, such change must have a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment. (Grant.) The issues in this case concern payment of wages in relationship to hours. Accordingly, the matter is within the scope of representation. (Jefferson School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 133, pp. 57-58.) Derivative (a) and (b) violations appropriate in unilateral change of process for releasing union stewards to represent employees. more or view all topics or full text.
243105902/28/00
1317S State of California (Department of Corrections)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The conduct which forms the basis of the dispute in this case is expressly authorized by the parties' overtime policy side letter and thus no unilateral change has been described; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text.
233007203/05/99
1329S State of California (Department of Corrections)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Individual employees do not have standing to allege unilateral change violations. (Oxnard School District (Gorcey/Tripp) (1988) PERB Decision No. 667. more or view all topics or full text.
233011605/03/99
1326E Chino Valley Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The District's action in altering the tentative agreements reached by the parties in negotiations did not constitute an unlawful unilateral change in violation of EERA since the agreements which the District changed were tentative and had not been ratified by the trustees and, therefore, had not been implemented with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text.
233009704/14/99
1296S State of California (Department of Personnel Admin)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Contract provision which is limited to "the term of this agreement" does not constitute a waiver permitting employer to unilaterally change past practice after expiration of the agreement; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text.
233000910/22/98
1291S State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer's unilateral imposition of performance standards in a manner inconsistent with provisions of expired collective bargaining agreement had continuing impact on a matter within the scope of representation and constituted unlawful unilateral change; pp. 3-4. more or view all topics or full text.
222917310/09/98
1271H Regents of the University of California (Federated University Police Officer’s Association)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charging party failed to show that University's conduct was not consistent with its rights under the agreement with the charging party. Thus, no unilateral change is described; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
222911406/30/98
1260S State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) (California Department of Forestry Firefighters)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
In order to prevail on a unilateral change charge, the charging party must establish that the employer, without providing the exclusive representative with notice or the opportunity to bargain, breached or altered the parties' written agreement or established past practice concerning a matter within the scope of representation and that the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact on the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members; p. 10, citing Pajaro Valley Unfied School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 51 and Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196. more or view all topics or full text.
222908304/20/98
1255H Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Transfer of primary duties from registered nurses to cardiovascular technicians (CVT) constitutes a negotiable change in a term or condition of employment of bargaining unit employees; p. 35, proposed dec; These facts do not fall under the Eureka test because CVT's had not been previously employed by employer. more or view all topics or full text.
222906603/20/98
1251S State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charge was dismissed because the charging party failed to establish that the State breached or otherwise altered either the parties' written agreement or past practice; pp. 5-6. more or view all topics or full text.
222906202/25/98
1252H Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Although the HEERA precludes the University from unilaterally changing a term or condition of employment within the scope of representation when employees are exclusively represented, the University has no such obligation in the absence of an exclusive representative; p. 10. During the period of transition from nonexclusive representation to exclusive representation, the Board requires employers to maintain the dynamic status quo; p. 10. Where University has communicated its intention to make certain changes to its nonexclusively represented employee and has completed partial implementation of those changes before the certification of an exclusive representative, final implementation of these changes is part of the dynamic status quo and not an unlawful unilateral change; pp. 11-12. pp. 11-12. more or view all topics or full text.
222906302/27/98
1244S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Association of Professional Scientists)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A change in health benefit plans or administrators is negotiable if the change has a material or significant effect or impact on the actual benefits received by an employee; p. 10. In benefits cases, actual benefits received by employees, rather than outline contained in CBA, represents the status quo by which unilateral change is measured; pp. 12-13. Board declines to find unilateral change in employee benefits where union fails to present any evidence of impact on actual vision care benefits or their cost to employees; p. 16. more or view all topics or full text.
222904501/27/98
1240E Fremont Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Abandoning contractual rehire procedures without notice or an opportunity to meet and confer is per se refusal to negotiate; p. 7. Where contract provision is clear and unambiguous, Board finds it unnecessary to discuss past practice; p. 5, note 5. more or view all topics or full text.
222902612/04/97
1242E Redwoods Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
An employer commits a unilateral change in job classifications where the existing classification is replaced by a new classification which performs the same essential duties; pp. 3-5. When employer creates a new classification to perform a function not previously performed, or abolishes a classification and ceases engaging in the activity previously performed by employees in that classification, it need not negotiate that decision; p. 28, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
222902912/19/97
1231H Trustees of the California State University (Academic Professionals of California)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Maintenance of employer's legal position that it had no duty to arbitrate grievances filed after expiration of contract, although allegedly an isolated breach of the collective bargaining agreement, does not constitute unilateral change; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text.
222901111/17/97
1225E Sonoma County Office of Education
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
To prevail on a complaint of unilateral change, the charging party must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the employer breached or otherwise altered the parties' written agreement or its own established past practice; (2) such action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the change is not merely an isolated breach of the contract, but amounts to a change of policy (i.e., having a generalized effect or continuing impact on bargaining members' terms and conditions of employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation. (Proposed decision at 7-8, citing Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196; Pajaro, supra; and Davis Unified School District, et al. (1980) PERB Decision No. 116. Unified School District, et al. (1980) PERB Decision No. 116. more or view all topics or full text.
222900511/04/97
1206E San Ysidro School District (California School Employees Association and Its San Ysidro Chapter #154))
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Where District proffered no credible rationale for change and where CBA limited benefits to those employees who worked at least half time, the Board inferred that the District's conversion of one 7-hour per day position into two 3.5 hour per day positions was effected for labor cost considerations and, therefore, negotiable; p. 7, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
212812206/23/97
1198E San Ysidro School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Association's appearance and speech at the governing board meeting constituted a valid request to negotiate under Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 223, since it is not essential that a request to negotiate be specific or made in a particular form, [citations] it is important for the charging party to signified its desire to negotiate to the employer; pp. 10-11, proposed dec. District board's vote to approve the reduction in hours in the face of Association's expressed concerns and demand to bargain constituted a flat refusal to negotiate; p. 11, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
212809505/07/97
1188H Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Since the employer has no obligation to meet and confer with the nonexclusive representative under HEERA, an employer's change prior to certification is not an unlawful unilateral change; p. 27. more or view all topics or full text.
212806703/19/97
1187E Hacienda La Puente Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
An employer who makes a preimpasse unilateral change in an established, negotiable practice violates its duty to meet and negotiate in good faith (citation). Such unilateral changes are a failure per se of the duty to negotiate in good faith (citations). An established negotiable practice may be reflected in a collective bargaining agreement (citation) or where the agreement is vague or ambiguous, it may be determined by an examination of bargaining history (citation) or the past practice (citations); p. 12, proposed dec. In order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change in or repudiation of, a contract or past practice, the charging party must show: (1) that the respondent has breached or otherwise altered the parties' written agreement or its own established past practice; and (2) that the breach constituted a change of policy having a the parties' written agreement or its own established past practice; and (2) that the breach constituted a change of policy having a proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
212806503/17/97
1174H Trustees of the California State University (Academic Professionals of California)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
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 langauge 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. 23, proposed dec. constitute unilateral change; p. 23, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
212801911/12/96
1169H Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
To determine whether a unilateral change has occurred, the charging party must establish that the employer altered the status quo by departing from the terms of the parties' contract or the established past practice; the status quo can encompass change as a normal part of the pattern of conduct between an employer and a union; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
202713809/12/96
1163E Arcata Elementary School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
In unilateral change of hours of vacant position, it is the employer's burden to show the change was not within the scope of bargaining because the change was based on factors other than labor cost considerations. more or view all topics or full text.
202712006/26/96
1154E El Centro School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Once on notice exclusive representative bears burden of clearly communicating request to bargain to the employer. "Not waiving" rights or threatened legal action are insufficient. more or view all topics or full text.
202710606/07/96
1145S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Work performed by bargaining unit members which was previously performed by employees of another bargaining unit represents an allegation that the employer unilaterally transferred work from one bargaining unit to another; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text.
202706103/08/96
1149S State of California (Department of Corrections) (International Union of Operating Engineers)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Where the change in practice is consistent with the parties' collective bargaining agreement the charge does not allege sufficient facts to establish a unilateral change; p. 5; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
202708204/30/96
1106E Moreno Valley Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The reassignment of employees to different shifts was a permanent change, having a generalized and continuing impact upon their terms and conditions of employment. The fact that only two employees were affected does not mitigate against this finding; p. 9, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
192609905/19/95
1098E Pasadena Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
It is axiomatic that the bargaining obligation of a public school employer extends only to the positions within the bargaining unit; p. 9, proposed dec. For a unilateral change to be in violation of the obligation to bargain, it must have "a generalized effect or continuing impact upon the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members;" p. 9, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
192608905/03/95
1092E Marin Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Although it is well established that while a zipper clause may relieve the employer from entertaining union proposals during the life of the contract, it does not cede to the employer the right to make unilateral changes in negotiable matters not covered by the contract (cases omitted); p. 83, proposed dec. No genuine impasse where negotiations have stalled as a result of bad faith negotiations; p. 85, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
192607003/21/95
1093H California State University (California State Employees Association) * * * VACATED by California State Employees' Association v. Public Employment Relations Board (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 923
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Whether a unilateral change has occurred is measured by comparing the action taken to the status quo established by a contract or the past practice; p. 11. Under federal law, which is generally followed by PERB in duty to bargain cases, it is clear that the duty to bargain from a status quo after contract expiration emanates from a statute and the duty to bargain obligation imposed by HEERA is more restricted than that imposed by federal statutues; p. 14. more or view all topics or full text.
192607904/05/95
1083E Sierra Joint Union High School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A brief rejection of a proposal does not, by itself, constitute a refusal to negotiate; p. 15 and 26. more or view all topics or full text.
192605102/17/95
1056S State of California (Cstate Employees Association, Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
When a CBA expires an employer must maintain certain terms contained within it until such time as bargaining over a successor agreement has been completed either by reaching agreement or impasse; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
182512909/14/94
1045E Oakland Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The association must show an impact on the actual health benefits received by employees resulting from the change in health plans in order to meet the burden of showing that the change constitutes a violation of EERA; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
182507305/03/94
1006E Gonzales Union High School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
As no applicable contract language existed, no existing outside agreements cover the situation, and no applicable past practice exists, the District was under an obligation to give notice and an opportunity to negotiate over the issue of employee payroll deductions for health benefits prior to implementing new policy; pp. 19-20, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
172411906/25/93
0955E Eureka City School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
To establish a unilateral change, the charging party must show that (1) the employer breached or altered the parties' written agreement or own established past practice; (2) such action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the change is not merely an isolated breach of the contract, but amounts to a change of policy (i.e., has a generalized effect or continuing impact upon bargaining unit members' terms and conditions of employment; and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text.
162316810/27/92
0884E Modesto City School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Although the practical effect of modifying a unit under PERB Regulation 32781(b)(1) may be to transfer work out of the unit, it is not an unlawful transfer because it is done in accord with the process PERB requires the employer to observe; p. 11. [The Board's decisions in Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) (1989) PERB Decision No. 722-H and Mt. San Antonio Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 334] indicate the removal of work from a bargaining unit may lawfully occur as a collateral affect of a unit modification when PERB's statutory and regulatory procedures are followed; pp. 12-13. more or view all topics or full text.
152209906/03/91
0876E Glendora Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
To state a prima facie case of a unilateral change the charging party must allege facts sufficient to establish: (1) the employer breached or altered the parties' written agreement or own established past practice; (2) such action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the change is not merely an isolated breach of the contract, but amounts to a change of policy (i.e., has a generalized effect or continuing impact upon bargaining unit members' terms and conditions of employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation; p. 8. A unilateral change in established policy, whether embodied in the contract or evident from the parties' past practice, cannot be established unless the allegations identify facts evidencing a conscious or apparent reversal of a previous understanding; p. 11. established unless the allegations identify facts evidencing a conscious or apparent reversal of a previous understanding; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text.
152208205/16/91
0873E Charter Oak Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
No unilateral change stated where District implemented policies reasonably comprehended within previous offers, the parties were at impasse and factual allegations were insufficient to show that the District acted in bad faith. more or view all topics or full text.
152206704/04/91
0868E Whisman Elementary School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral acts of subcontracting and transfer of work have been analyzed differently by the Board; p. 12. Contracting out refers to a transfer of unit work to those not in the employ of the employer in question; p. 12. Transfer of work involves a transfer of unit work to nonunit employees of the same employer; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text.
152204302/14/91
0861E Perris Union High School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Prima facie case of unilateral change is not found where District refused to implement an [advisory] recommendation of an insurance committee and, instead, implemented alternative health benefit plan previously authorized under a mediator's settlement proposal; Warning letter, p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
152201812/20/90
0840S State of California (Department of Mental Health)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The Department of Mental Health implemented an illegal unilateral change when it changed the scheduling system at Metropolitan State Hospital from a rotational scheduling system to a set day off scheduling system without notifying the association nor giving it an opportunity to negotiate on the change. more or view all topics or full text.
142118309/18/90
0841E Temple City Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
An employer's unilateral change in terms or conditions of employment within the scope of representation is, absent a valid defense, a per se refusal to negotiate in violation of EERA section 3543.5(c). When unilateral changes occur during EERA's impasse procedures, they violate EERA section 3543.5(e); p. 24, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
142118609/20/90
0814E Temple City Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
To state a prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change, the Association must allege facts indicating that action was taken which changed the status quo regarding a matter within the scope of representation without giving the exclusive representative notice and opportunity to bargain; or, if negotiations have occurred, that the matter was not negotiated to agreement or through impasse prior to implementation of the change. Furthermore, to be unlawful, the change must amount to a change in policy having either a generalized effect or continuing impact on the matter within the scope of representation; pp. 8-9. more or view all topics or full text.
142111706/13/90
0798E Compton Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
District made unlawful unilateral change when it adopted a student grievance policy and when it adopted calendars for the upcoming fall and spring terms. more or view all topics or full text.
142107903/22/90
0771H Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Established policy relating to terms and conditions of employment may be embodied in a collective bargaining agreement, or where the contract is silent or ambiguous, it may be determined from past practice or bargaining history; p. 47, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
132020909/28/89
0750E Riverside Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral action to ban smoking inside a district's facilities is a matter of basic educational policy within the managerial prerogative of the district; p. 19. more or view all topics or full text.
132014706/29/89
0720E Compton Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Despite district's financial problems, district failed to present evidence that unilateral action in reduction of benefit plan was its only alternative. Unilateral change prior to the exhaustion of impasse procedures violated EERA section 3543.5(c). more or view all topics or full text.
132005703/01/89
0722H Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A unilateral reassignment of unit employees to non-unit positions is a refusal to meet and confer; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text.
132005903/03/89
0668E Tahoe - Truckee Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Evidence supports finding that the District unilaterally subcontracted unit work. more or view all topics or full text.
121908105/27/88
0617E Los Angeles Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
No unilateral change where charging party failed to demonstrate that departure from procedures amounted to change in policy having a generalized effect or continuing impact upon the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members. more or view all topics or full text.
111807203/27/87
0618E Los Angeles Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
No unilateral change where employer's refusal to accept evaluation made by charging party and acceptance of "late" grievance did not amount to change in policy having a generalized effect or continuing impact upon the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members. more or view all topics or full text.
111807503/31/87
0580E Roseville Joint Union High School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral change possible despite Education Code prohibition on contracting out janitorial services. more or view all topics or full text.
101713606/30/86
0571E Riverside Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Prima facie allegations of unilateral changes in hours and classification warrant issuance of complaint. more or view all topics or full text.
101709905/07/86
0562E Riverside Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
No unilateral change because no causal link between protected activity and critical evaluation. more or view all topics or full text.
101705001/24/86
0562Ea Riverside Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employee unaffected by alleged unilateral change cannot bring charge. more or view all topics or full text.
101710305/16/86
0565E Victor Valley Union High School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral change in number of work days in school year by decreasing number of paid preparation days and increasing number of teaching days, found unlawful. Unilateral change in number of hours per day - increase of 10 minutes instructional time/reduction of 10 minutes preparation time. more or view all topics or full text.
101707904/10/86
2490M County of San Joaquin
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charging party failed to prove its prima facie case that public employer unilaterally eliminated an established practice of providing flexible schedules for bargaining-unit employees with child care responsibilities, where evidence failed to show that practice was known to and condoned by any manager besides a low-level supervisor who admittedly acted outside her authority when approving schedule changes. more or view all topics or full text.
412906/30/16
1955H Trustees of the California State University (San Diego)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The employer did not unlawfully contract out work when its decision to discontinue staffing remedial mathematics and writing classes was made independent of its decision to contract with a third party to teach these classes. more or view all topics or full text.
327404/24/08
1751H Trustees of the California State University
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Policy at issue here notifies students and employees of existing mandates in workplace violence prevention policy and guidelines, expressly providing that if any discipline is brought against a represented employee the disciplinary procedures of the applicable collective bargaining agreement apply. No unilateral change found because there was no change in the terms and conditions of employment. more or view all topics or full text.
299102/08/05
1748E Alum Rock Union Elementary School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charge alleging unilateral change filed by an individual was dismissed as only the exclusive representative has standing to allege a failure to meet and confer. more or view all topics or full text.
297302/07/05
1221H Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
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. 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
1214E Bellflower Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Charge does not state a prima facie case of a unilateral change, because it lacks sufficient facts to determine whether any policies were changed; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
212812606/30/97
0516H Regents of the University of California (San Francisco Medical Center)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
No unilateral change where only evidence was one supervisor mischaracterizing a draft proposal. more or view all topics or full text.
91618708/07/85
0375E Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Per se violation of duty to negotiate in good faith may occur when an employer makes unilateral change; p. 108. more or view all topics or full text.
81502101/05/84
0373Eb Mt. Diablo Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
As counselor caseload negotiable, employer violated its duty to negotiate in good faith when it unilaterally increased the caseload of counselors; p. 24. Employer's unilateral increase of workload of librarians breached its duty to negotiate in good faith. Employer ordered to restore status quo and negotiate with association; p. 19. more or view all topics or full text.
81514208/15/84
0371E Mammoth Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Imposing suspension as discipline did not constitute unilateral change as discipline provided for in Education Code was incorporated into management rights clause of MOU; pp. 7-8. more or view all topics or full text.
81501512/29/83
0372E Kern Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer must negotiate over effects as soon as it decides to lay off, consistent with its duty to negotiate over the effects of a decision at a meaningful time; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text.
81501612/29/83
0364E Anaheim City School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer is precluded from making unilateral changes in the status quo both during the term of a negotiated agreement and after that agreement expires until parties negotiate successor agreement or complete impasse procedures; pp. 13-14. One time mistake which did not amount to change in established policy did not amount to unilateral change; pp. 25-26. more or view all topics or full text.
81500512/14/83
0360E Arcohe Union School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer's unilateral subcontracting of custodial services is per se violation. more or view all topics or full text.
71429411/23/83
0359H Regents of the University of California * * * VACATED by Cole Letter of October 29, 1986 * * *
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer's unilateral elimination of use of lecturers for up to eight years, without notice to or opportunity for non-exclusive representative, is violation of duty to bargain. Vacated by Cole letter of 10/29/86. more or view all topics or full text.
71429311/23/83
0356H Regents of the University of California (Statewide University Police Association)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
University is not in business of providing parking, thus may not unilaterally change "price" of its product, as managerial prerogative. more or view all topics or full text.
71428811/14/83
0357E Calexico Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer's unilateral imposition of freeze on step and column increases violation of duty to bargain. more or view all topics or full text.
71429111/22/83
0354E Palo Verde Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer's unilateral switch of "catch up day" from Monday to Friday is not unilateral change of term or condition of employment where no change to employee's hours or work conditions. more or view all topics or full text.
71428110/28/83
0339E Salinas Union High School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
General discussion of unilateral change rules. more or view all topics or full text.
71423608/22/83
0343E South San Francisco Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer's refusal to bargain effects of layoff proposal offered by exclusive representative not unlawful where contract provision incorporates personnel rules on layoff. more or view all topics or full text.
71424309/02/83
0337E Kern Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Nature of specific demand to negotiate discussed. (Does not require specific proposal from exclusive representative.) more or view all topics or full text.
71422908/19/83
0296E Colusa Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Under Grant Joint Union HSD (1982) PERB Decision No. 196, Board has jurisdiction when employer unilaterally deviated from contractual terms in way that has generalized effect or continuing impact upon terms and conditions of bargaining unit employees; p. 5. Pre-impasse unilateral change in denying holidays was a change of a matter within the scope of representation violating EERA; p. 29, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
71410603/21/83
0289E Walnut Valley Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
District violated duty to negotiate by unilaterally adopting and applying criteria and procedure to certify compentency of employees over 65 years of age; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
71408402/28/83
0291E Modesto City Schools
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
District's implementation of policies not comprehended within its last best offer constitutes a violation; p. 48. more or view all topics or full text.
71409003/08/83
0279E Rio Hondo Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Assignment of teaching duties to Cooperative Work Experience instructors was closely enough related to their existing duties as not to be an unlawful policy change; p. 18. more or view all topics or full text.
71403612/31/82
0262E Placer Hills Union School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Prima facie violation of EERA section 3543.5(c) occurs when sufficient facts are alleged to show: (1) that the District breached the parties written agreement or established past practice; (2) the breach amounted to a change of policy; and (3) the change of policy concerned matters within the scope of representation; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text.
71401211/30/82
0196E Grant Joint Union High School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Subsection 3541.5(b) does not divest PERB of jurisdiction to resolve unfair practice charges simply because the employer's conduct also constitutes breach of a collective bargaining agreement. The subsection grants PERB authority to resolve charge even if it must interpret terms of agreement to do so; pp. 7-8. PERB is concerned with a change in established policy (concerning a matter within scope), whether the policy is embodied in a contract or evidenced by past practice; p. 8. Not every breach of contract violates Act. Breach must be a change of policy which has a generalized effect or continuing impact upon terms and conditions of employment; p. 9. Competing claims over proper contract interpretation, without showing that charging party's interpretation was the one agreed to, do not demonstrate policy change or violation; pp. 12-13. that charging party's interpretation was the one agreed to, do not demonstrate policy change or violation; pp. 12-13. more or view all topics or full text.
61306402/26/82
1003E Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment within the scope of representation is a per se refusal to negotiate; p. 9, proposed dec. To demonstrate a unilateral change, the charging party must first establish the "status quo." This is done by reference to: (1) the party's CBA; or (2) a showing of the employer's: (a) pattern of activity, or (b) past practice with regard to negotiable subject at issue. The charging party must then show that the employer has, without first providing an opportunity to negotiate, deviated from that CBA provision, pattern of activity or past practice; pp. 9-10, proposed dec. Under EERA section 3541.5(b) the Board has authority to resolve an unfair practice charge even if it must interpret the terms of the CBA to do so (citing Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB unfair practice charge even if it must interpret the terms of the CBA to do so (citing Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB more or view all topics or full text.
172411606/24/93
0999S State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The process of negotiating over terms within the expired contract does not result in suspension of those terms during negotiations. Rather, the terms of the expired agreement remain in effect throughout negotiation and may continue to be implemented in accordance with those terms; p. 12, footnote. more or view all topics or full text.
172411206/22/93
0991E Long Beach Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Pre-impasse unilateral change in established, negotiable practice constitutes a per se violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith; p. 8. Established practice may be reflected in (1) collective bargaining agreement, including examination of bargaining history where provisions are vague or ambiguous; or (2) past practices; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text.
172408304/26/93
0976S State of California (Department of General Services)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A threatened unilateral change of policy or practice does not, without facts which indicate that the employer has made a definite decision to implement a change, constitute a prima facie violation; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
172405002/23/93
0094E San Mateo County Community College District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Lengthy discussion of federal and PERB precedent on the reasoning behind the prohibition on unilateral changes; pp. 12-17. more or view all topics or full text.
31008006/08/79
0051E Pajaro Valley Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Unilateral change is per se violation of duty to bargain. more or view all topics or full text.
2210705/22/78
0040E Sonoma County Office of Education
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Not a unilateral change to prepare and submit a salary study to the personnel commission. Salary changes never implemented by governing board. more or view all topics or full text.
158811/23/77
0937E Eastside Union School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Pre-impasse unilateral change in established, negotiable practice is failure per se of the duty to negotiate in good faith; p. 10, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
162308406/02/92
0918E Los Angeles Unified School District (Association of Public School Supervisory Employees)
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer's failure to reschedule one meeting is insufficient to show a policy change by the employer that had a generalized effect or continuing impact upon the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text.
162301601/07/92
0912E Willits Unified School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
District unilaterally implemented a change in its past practice of granting released time for negotiations, by denying released time to union chief negotiator to attend PERB settlement conference, where underlying charge was interpretation of section of parties' CBA. more or view all topics or full text.
162300212/05/91
0074E Amador Valley Joint Union High School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Successful completion of negotiations does not exonerate unlawful direct dealing conduct that may have occurred during course of bargaining; pp. 7-8. more or view all topics or full text.
2219210/02/78
1353E East Side Union High School District
602.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The Arcata rule was not intended, and will be applied, to grant carte blanche authority to employers to change the hours of vacant bargaining unit positions unilaterally; p. 9. The employer may not unilaterally convert a vacant full-time, full-benefit position to multiple part-time, reduced-benefit positions at substantial labor cost savings and justify the action simply because the resulting part-time positions will provide a changed level of service; p. 10. Employer can adjust hours of a vacant position unilaterally if the changes are not primarily bases on wage and benefit cost considerations. more or view all topics or full text.
233017409/30/99