All notes for Subtopic 602.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2803E | Oxnard Union High School District 602.01000: 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 that a respondent employer violated its decision bargaining obligation, an exclusive representative must prove: (1) the employer changed or deviated from the status quo; (2) the change or deviation concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change or deviation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing adequate advance notice of the proposed change to the employees’ union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (Bellflower Unified School District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 110 | 01/26/22 |
| 2852H | Regents of the University of California 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General To prove a prima facie case of an unlawful unilateral change, a charging party must show that: (1) the employer changed or deviated from the status quo; (2) the change or deviation concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change or deviation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing adequate advance notice of the proposed change to the union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 121 | 02/09/23 |
| 2847M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Kern County Hospital Authority 602.01000: 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, a charging party must prove that: (1) the employer changed or deviated from the status quo; (2) the change or deviation concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change or deviation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing adequate advance notice of the proposed change to the union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (Bellflower Unified School District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 9.) (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 12/20/22 | ||
| 1737E | Colton Joint Unified School District 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General In determining whether a party has violated EERA section 3543.5(c), PERB utilizes either the “per se” or “totality of the conduct” test, depending on the specific conduct involved and the effect of such conduct on the negotiating process. (Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143.) Unilateral changes are considered “per se” violations if certain criteria are met. Those criteria are: (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. (Walnut Valley Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 160; Grant Joint Unified High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196.) In order to prevail on a theory of a change in job responsibilities, the charging party must demonstrate actual changes in the employee's job duties. If the changes are reasonably comprehended within the existing job duties, an assignment of such duties, even if never performed before, is not a violation. (Rio Hondo Community College District (1982) PERB Decision No. 279.) Here, the employees in question were still employed by the District while at work at Las Banderas. While their work locations were changed two days per week, CSEA did not indicate that their job duties had changed. Moreover, the transfer language of the current agreement gave the District discretion to transfer employees so long as the transfer is not for disciplinary reasons. CSEA did not assert that the transfer was for disciplinary reasons; thus, the language of the agreement appeared to support the District’s position that there had been no change. (adopting warning letter at p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 58 | 01/20/05 |
| 2846M | City and County of San Francisco 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General In determining whether an employer’s decision is within the scope of representation under MMBA section 3504, PERB first determines which of the three categories of managerial decisions identified in International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259 the decision falls into: (1) “decisions that ‘have only an indirect and attenuated impact on the employment relationship’ and thus are not mandatory subjects of bargaining,” such as advertising, product design, and financing; (2) “decisions directly defining the employment relationship, such as wages, workplace rules, and the order of succession of layoffs and recalls,” which are “always mandatory subjects of bargaining”; and (3) “decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but nonetheless may not be mandatory subjects of bargaining because they involve ‘a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise’ or, in other words, the employer’s ‘retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment.’” When a decision falls into the third category, PERB first determines whether the decision has “a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees” that “arises from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision.” If both requirements are met, PERB determines whether “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.” (pp. 14-18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 88 | 11/17/22 |
| 2820M | County of Santa Clara 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General Past PERB decisions have stated that if a new assignment is reasonably comprehended within employees’ existing assignments, the new assignment is not within the scope of representation. However, under the more modern formulation, the “reasonably comprehended” question is more integral to determining whether the employer changed the status quo than it is to deciding whether a specified topic is a mandatory or permissive subject of bargaining. In future unilateral change cases, PERB directed Board agents to recognize job duties and assignments as generally falling within the scope of representation and to apply the “reasonably comprehended” standard as part of determining whether an employer changed or deviated from the status quo. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 169 | 05/12/22 |
| 2820M | County of Santa Clara 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General PERB applies the “reasonably comprehended” standard if an employer adds a job duty or issues a new assignment, and PERB may apply other means to determine materiality in other circumstances. As PERB noted in Cerritos Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2819, p. 30, such other contexts include, but are not limited to, changes that impact workload or performance standards (see, e.g., County of Kern (2018) PERB Decision No. 2615-M, p. 10 & adopting proposed decision at p. 11), or changes that transfer duties to other employees within the bargaining unit or outside the unit (see, e.g., Desert Sands Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1468, pp. 3-4). (p. 6, fn. 4.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 169 | 05/12/22 |
| 2820M | County of Santa Clara 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General If an employer changes employee assignments or duties without providing the exclusive representative union with notice and an opportunity to meet and confer, outside of any contractual right it may have, there are several means by which a union can establish a unilateral change. (See Cerritos Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2819, p. 30.) Where nurses’ union alleged county began assigning clinical nurses to work in central monitor room and watch multiple telemetry monitors for entire shift, the critical question was whether the County issued nurses new assignments that were not “reasonably comprehended” within their existing assignment or set of duties. “Reasonably comprehended” is an objective standard that refers to what a reasonable employee would comprehend based on all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, past practice, training, and job descriptions. (Rio Hondo Community College District (1982) PERB Decision No. 279, pp. 17-18 [while catchall language in job description is insufficient to overcome evidence of contrary past practice, PERB interprets job descriptions in the context of employees’ overall role].) For instance, the Board has found new duties were not reasonably comprehended within an existing assignment when they required employees to obtain additional credentialing. (Mt. San Antonio Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 297, p. 11.) (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 169 | 05/12/22 |
| 2820M | County of Santa Clara 602.01000: 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 that a respondent employer made an unlawful unilateral change, a charging party union that exclusively represents a bargaining unit must prove: (1) the employer changed or deviated from the status quo; (2) the change or deviation concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change or deviation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing adequate advance notice of the proposed change to the union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 169 | 05/12/22 |
| 2818I | Orange County Superior Court and Region 4 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General Past practice can be used to establish the status quo from which we assess an alleged unilateral change, and it can also be used as an interpretive aid in assessing ambiguous written language. In the former instance, a past practice establishes the status quo only if it was “regular and consistent” or “historic and accepted.” (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 13, fn. 9.) However, the inquiry is fundamentally different when analyzing the parties’ past practice to help ascertain the meaning of ambiguous contract language. (Antelope Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2618, p. 21.) In such circumstances, the past practice is but one tool for interpreting the contract, and therefore need not be as definitive as when it is defining the status quo in the absence of a contract term. (Id. at p. 22.) Union failed to establish either manner of past practice violation based on insufficient testimony and past practice consistent with the language of the MOU. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 167 | 05/05/22 |
| 2796E | Bellflower Unified School District 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General A single deviation from a contract can have a continuing impact rather than merely constituting an “isolated” breach, if the employer has “imposed its own interpretation” on a contractual provision, created a standard not found in the contract, or interpreted the contract in a manner contrary to its intended meaning. (City of Davis (2016) PERB Decision No. 2494-M, p. 20 [explaining the Board’s holdings in three cases involving Regents of the University of California].) Such conduct has a continuing impact to the extent it suggests that a similar scenario may arise in the future and the employer may then take the same approach. (Id. at p. 21; see also Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 9 [single refusal to arbitrate a grievance supported a unilateral change claim because employer asserted the right to act similarly in the future]; Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee & California Superior Courts of Region 2 (2020) PERB Decision No. 2701-I, p. 54, quoting County of Riverside (2003) PERB Decision No. 1577-M, p. 6 [“The failure to properly process even 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.’”]; San Bernardino, supra, PERB Decision No. 2599-M, pp. 7-8 [decision to use GPS to track a single employee had a continuing impact because employer asserted contractual right to do so]; Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2431-M, p. 19 [decision not to reimburse single employee for tuition expenses could have continuing impact if it reflected employer’s assertion of incorrect contractual interpretation that could arise again].) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 85 | 11/08/21 |
| 2796E | Bellflower Unified School District 602.01000: 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 does not constitute an independent EERA violation, and therefore is only actionable at PERB if it would “also constitute an unfair practice.” (EERA, § 3541.5, subd. (b).) A contract breach has a “generalized effect or continuing impact” if either: (1) the breach changes a policy or employment term applicable to future situations; or (2) the employer acts unilaterally based upon an incorrect legal interpretation or insistence on a non-existent legal right that could be relevant to future disputes. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, p. 8; see also San Bernardino Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2599, pp. 7-8; City of Davis (2016) PERB Decision No. 2494-M, pp. 20-23; City of Montebello (2016) PERB Decision No. 2491-M, p. 15 [continuing impact or generalized effect found where employer asserts it had a contractual or other right to take the action, essentially asserting a right to repeat the disputed conduct]; County of Santa Clara (2015) PERB Decision No. 2431, p. 19; Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2262, p. 15 [application of zero tolerance provision of drug testing policy had a generalized effect and continuing impact]; Regents of the University of California (2010) PERB Decision No. 2101-H, p. 25; Hacienda La Puente Unified School District (1997) PERB Decision No. 1186, p. 4 [finding unilateral change because there was “no evidence to suggest” that the employer would in the future refrain from taking similar actions].) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 85 | 11/08/21 |
| 2796E | Bellflower Unified School District 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General Intent is not necessary in establishing any of the four elements of a prima facie unilateral change case. (City of Montebello (2016) PERB Decision No. 2491-M, p. 10; County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 18 [unilateral changes carry such potential to frustrate negotiations, that they are unlawful “even without evidence of subjective bad faith or malign motive”].) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 85 | 11/08/21 |
| 2796E | Bellflower Unified School District 602.01000: 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 that a respondent employer made an unlawful unilateral change, a charging party union that exclusively represents a bargaining unit must prove: (1) the employer changed or deviated from the status quo; (2) the change or deviation concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change or deviation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing adequate advance notice of the proposed change to the union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 85 | 11/08/21 |
| 2783H | Regents of the University of California 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General The University issued the mandatory influenza vaccination policy because of grave concerns by its experts (as well as the California Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) that the 2020-2021 flu season, combined with the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic, had the potential to overwhelm its hospitals due to the simultaneous spread of both respiratory illnesses. The implementation of the University’s influenza vaccination policy was a direct response to a potential confluence of the COVID-19 global pandemic and an outbreak of the influenza virus causing catastrophic outcomes and needless loss of life. This potential catastrophe affected not just University employees, but also its students and the general public who may have needed to use University hospitals. Under these unprecedented circumstances, requiring the University to negotiate the decision to require influenza vaccination would abridge its right to determine public health policy during a pandemic. (p. 25.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 38 | 07/26/21 |
| 2783H | Regents of the University of California 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General Mandatory influenza vaccination is not an issue that tends to create conflict between employees and management that could be resolved through collective bargaining. The subject of influenza vaccinations is not one that divides people along management-union lines, but rather splits people—students, faculty, and staff—into those who can and will get vaccinated versus those who cannot or will not get vaccinated. Thus, the decision to require influenza vaccinations in response to a public health hazard that affects not just employees, but also students and the general population, was not amenable to collective bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 38 | 07/26/21 |
| 2783H | Regents of the University of California 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General Under HEERA, “[a] subject is within the scope of representation” “as a ‘term or condition of employment’” “if: (1) it involves the employment relationship, (2) it is of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur and the mediatory influence of collective bargaining is an appropriate means of resolving the conflict, and (3) the employer’s obligation to negotiate would not unduly abridge its freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of the employer’s mission.” (p. 23.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 38 | 07/26/21 |
| 2772M | County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * * 602.01000: 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 to a matter within the scope of representation is a per se violation of the duty to meet and confer in good faith. To establish a prima facie unilateral change violation, the charging party must prove that: (1) the employer took action to change policy; (2) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms and conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing advance notice of the proposed change to the employees’ union and negotiating in good faith at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (pp. 26-27.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2761M | County of San Joaquin 602.01000: 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 to a matter within the scope of representation constitutes a per se violation of the duty to meet and negotiate. (Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143, p. 22.) To establish a prima facie case of an unlawful unilateral change, a charging party must prove that: (1) the employer took action to change policy; (2) the change concerns a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing advance notice of the proposed change to the employees’ union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, pp. 8-9.) Three primary types of policy changes are sufficient to prove the first element: (1) deviation from the status quo set forth in a written agreement or written policy; (2) a change in established past practice; and (3) a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (Id. at p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 92 | 04/12/21 |
| 2610H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (University Council-American Federation of Teachers) 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General By closing the Young Musician’s Program at the UC Berkeley campus, laying off employees, and transferring the Program to an outside entity, the University changed policy. This change also had a generalized effect and continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment, inasmuch as “a bargaining unit is adversely affected when a work transfer results in layoffs or the failure to rehire bargaining-unit workers who would otherwise have been rehired.” (Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell (1986) 41 Cal.3d 651, 659.) (pp. 32-33.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 100 | 12/19/18 |
| 2731M | City of Culver City 602.01000: 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 per se violation of its duty to meet and confer when it fails to afford the employees’ representative reasonable advance notice and an opportunity to bargain before reaching a firm decision to establish or change a policy concerning a negotiable subject. To establish an unlawful unilateral action, the charging party must prove facts showing 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. [Citations.] PERB has recognized three general categories of unlawful unilateral actions: (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. [Citations.] (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 6 | 06/10/20 |
| 2749E | Sacramento City Unified School District 602.01000: 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 concurrently or derivatively violates EERA section 3543.5, subdivisions (a) and (b) because it necessarily interferes with employees and their union in the exercise of protected rights. (San Francisco Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 105, pp.19-20.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 58 | 11/02/20 |
| 2749E | Sacramento City Unified School District 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General Because a unilateral change is a per se violation of the statutory duty to bargain, these standards apply irrespective of whether a party evidences a good faith belief in its mistaken position. (See, e.g., City of Montebello (2016) PERB Decision No. 2491-M, p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 58 | 11/02/20 |
| 2749E | Sacramento City Unified School District 602.01000: 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 to a matter within the scope of representation constitutes a per se violation of the duty to meet and negotiate. (Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143, p. 22.) To establish a prima facie case of an unlawful unilateral change, a charging party must prove that: (1) the employer took action to change policy; (2) the change concerns a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing advance notice of the proposed change to the employees’ union and negotiating in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, pp. 8-9 (Merced).) Regarding the first element, there are three primary types of policy changes: (1) deviation from the status quo set forth in a written agreement or written policy; (2) a change in established past practice; and (3) a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (Merced, supra, PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 58 | 11/02/20 |
| 2745M | County of Sacramento 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 39 | 09/18/20 |
| 2723E | Lodi Unified School District 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General It is unlawful for a public school employer to “[r]efuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with an exclusive representative.” (EERA, § 3543.5, subd. (c).) A unilateral change to a matter within the scope of representation constitutes a per se violation of the duty to meet and negotiate. (Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143, p. 22.) To establish a prima facie case of an unlawful unilateral change, a charging party must prove: (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. (Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2262, p. 9.) The Board 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. (Pasadena Area Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2444, p. 12, fn. 6.) The fundamental dispute between the parties in Lodi Unified School District centers on the first element of the prima facie case: whether the District took actions to change policy, either by changing the terms of the agreement or altering its past practice regarding vacation scheduling and cash out of vacation hours over the maximum carryover amount. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 189 | 05/26/20 |
| 2740M | County of Merced 602.01000: 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 to a matter within the scope of representation constitutes a per se violation of the duty to meet and negotiate. (Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143, p. 22.) To establish a prima facie case of an unlawful unilateral change, a charging party must prove that: (1) the employer took action to change policy; (2) the change concerns a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms or conditions of employment; (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing advance notice of the proposed change to the employees’ union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (City of San Diego (2015) PERB Decision No. 2464-M, p. 51.) Regarding the first element, there are three primary types of policy changes: (1) deviation from the status quo set forth in a written agreement or written policy; (2) a change in established past practice; and (3) a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (Pasadena Area Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2444, p. 12, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 29 | 08/10/20 |
| 602.01000: 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 per se violation of its duty to meet and confer when it fails to afford the employees’ representative reasonable advance notice and an opportunity to bargain before reaching a firm decision to establish or change a policy concerning a negotiable subject. To establish an unlawful unilateral action, the charging party must prove facts showing 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. [Citations.] PERB has recognized three general categories of unlawful unilateral actions: (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. [Citations.] (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. | ||||
| 2680M | County of Santa Clara 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 86 | 10/31/19 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2579M | County of Monterey 602.01000: 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. | 43 | 33 | 07/20/18 |
| 2579M | County of Monterey 602.01000: 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. | 43 | 33 | 07/20/18 |
| 2659M | County of Kern and Kern County Hospital Authority 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 40 | 08/06/19 |
| 2684E | Modoc County Office of Education 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 104 | 11/27/19 |
| 2648M | City of Arcadia 602.01000: 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. | 44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2615M | County of Kern 602.01000: 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. | 43 | 109 | 12/21/18 |
| 2609I | San Francisco County Superior Court and Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.01000: 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. | 43 | 99 | 12/18/18 |
| 2524M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 602.01000: 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. | 41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 602.01000: 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. | 41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 602.01000: 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. | 41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 602.01000: 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. | 41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2518E | Los Angeles Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 41 | 146 | 03/06/17 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 602.01000: 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. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2464M | City of San Diego * * * Affirmed, 5 Cal.5th 898 (2018). Remedy modified by City of San Diego (2019) PERB Decision No. 2464a-M * * * 602.01000: 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. | 40 | 108 | 12/29/15 |
| 2431M | County of Santa Clara 602.01000: 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. | 39 | 181 | 06/10/15 |
| 2321M | County of Santa Clara 602.01000: 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. | 38 | 30 | 07/25/13 |
| 2300H | Regents of the University of California 602.01000: 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. | 37 | 141 | 12/20/12 |
| 2351M | City of Sacramento 602.01000: 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. | 38 | 104 | 12/24/13 |
| 2380M | City of Selma 602.01000: 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. | 39 | 11 | 06/27/14 |
| 2231Ma | Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District 602.01000: 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. | 36 | 185 | 05/23/12 |
| 2213E | Palomar Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 36 | 69 | 10/27/11 |
| 2271M | City of Davis 602.01000: 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. | 37 | 12 | 06/08/12 |
| 2242M | County of Sonoma 602.01000: 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. | 36 | 131 | 02/29/12 |
| 2238M | City of San Juan Capistrano 602.01000: 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. | 36 | 125 | 02/24/12 |
| 2210S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 602.01000: 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. | 36 | 64 | 10/13/11 |
| 2196S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Avenal State Prison) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of the California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H and County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M * * * 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, where the Board held that a demand to bargain effects merely needs to identify potential prospective effects, not actual effects, and County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects, if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *In order to state a prima facie case of failure to bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable management decision, the employee organization must demonstrate that it made a valid request to negotiate over identifiable, reasonably foreseeable, and negotiable effects of the decision. In the absence of such a request, an employer who implements a nonnegotiable decision without prior notice does not violate the duty to bargain. Ideally, if the employer reasonably anticipates that its decision will have negotiable effects, it will provide sufficient notice prior to implementation to afford an opportunity for negotiation. However, where the employer does not reasonably anticipate any negotiable effects and therefore implements with little or no prior notice, the union may still demand bargaining after implementation, provided it can identify any negotiable effects. In such cases, once the union is aware of the change, the failure to give formal notice is of no legal import. Moreover, the union does not waive its right to bargain by failing to request bargaining prior to implementation. Nonetheless, the union must still make a valid request to negotiate that clearly identifies the negotiable effects of the decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 30 | 08/12/11 |
| 2173M | County of Sonoma 602.01000: 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. | 35 | 61 | 03/01/11 |
| 2156S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Corcoran State Prison) 602.01000: 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. | 35 | 26 | 01/19/11 |
| 2160E | Sonoma County Office of Education 602.01000: 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. | 35 | 33 | 02/01/11 |
| 2152S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 602.01000: 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. | 35 | 17 | 12/16/10 |
| 2145M | West Contra Costa Healthcare District 602.01000: 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. | 35 | 5 | 11/30/10 |
| 2143M | Omnitrans 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 171 | 11/18/10 |
| 2144M | West Side Healthcare District 602.01000: 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. | 35 | 6 | 11/30/10 |
| 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 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, where the Board overruled the decision’s interpretation of the scope of representation test, and County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2663-M, where the Board overruled the remainder of the decision as to its specific application of the scope of representation test to promotional opportunities, including procedures. * * *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 Meyers-Milias-Brown Act: (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. | 34 | 160 | 10/26/10 |
| 2125M | County of Fresno 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 122 | 08/11/10 |
| 2101H | Regents of the University of California (Davis) 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 55 | 03/01/10 |
| 2101H | Regents of the University of California (Davis) 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 55 | 03/01/10 |
| 2084H | Regents of the University of California (Los Angles) 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 20 | 12/14/09 |
| 2092E | Desert Sands Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 39 | 02/01/10 |
| 2092E | Desert Sands Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 39 | 02/01/10 |
| 1876Ha | Trustees of the California State University 602.01000: 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. | 33 | 73 | 04/15/09 |
| 2115S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of Personnel Administration) 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 99 | 06/10/10 |
| 2110S | State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M. * * *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. | 34 | 90 | 06/01/10 |
| 2112I | Los Angeles Superior Court 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 94 | 06/07/10 |
| 2109H | Regents of the University of California * * * OVERRULED by Culver City Employees Association v. City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M. * * *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. | 34 | 83 | 05/19/10 |
| 2103M | City of San Diego (Office of the City Attorney) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, where the Board held that an employer’s act of soliciting employees to waive a contractual right or to change an established practice constitutes a firm decision or actual change in policy for the purpose of demonstrating an unlawful unilateral change. * * *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. | 34 | 63 | 03/26/10 |
| 2105H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 ) 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 73 | 04/21/10 |
| 2104M | County of Mendocino 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 74 | 04/21/10 |
| 2100M | County of Sonoma 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 54 | 02/25/10 |
| 2001M | Omnitrans 602.01000: 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. | 33 | 34 | 01/30/09 |
| 2085S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 602.01000: 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. | 34 | 24 | 12/22/09 |
| 2070H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 602.01000: 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. | 33 | 173 | 10/15/09 |
| 2057E | San Francisco Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 33 | 145 | 08/28/09 |
| 2048E | San Francisco Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313-E 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313-E, where the Board held that a demand to bargain only needs to identify potential prospective effects, not actual effects. * * *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. | 33 | 123 | 06/30/09 |
| 2044M | County of Sacramento 602.01000: 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. | 33 | 126 | 06/30/09 |
| 2045M | County of Sacramento 602.01000: 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. | 33 | 127 | 06/30/09 |
| 2043M | County of Sacramento 602.01000: 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. | 33 | 122 | 06/30/09 |
| 2030M | Omnitrans 602.01000: 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. | 33 | 91 | 05/29/09 |
| 2027M | City of Riverside 602.01000: 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. | 33 | 97 | 05/19/09 |
| 2002E | Long Beach Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359. * * *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. | 33 | 36 | 01/30/09 |
| 1960M | South Placer Fire Protection District 602.01000: 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. | 32 | 96 | 06/10/08 |
| 1978S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 602.01000: 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. | 32 | 148 | 09/26/08 |
| 1967S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 602.01000: 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. | 32 | 109 | 06/27/08 |
| 1932M | City and County of San Francisco (International Airport) 602.01000: 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. | 32 | 14 | 12/21/07 |
| 1926H | Trustees of the California State University 602.01000: 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. | 31 | 152 | 10/31/07 |
| 1915M | County of Sierra 602.01000: 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. | 31 | 119 | 06/27/07 |
| 1895E | Newark Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 31 | 78 | 03/27/07 |
| 1863E | El Centro Elementary School District 602.01000: 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. | 31 | 10 | 11/13/06 |
| 1886H | Trustees of the California State University 602.01000: 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. | 31 | 65 | 02/20/07 |
| 1866H | Trustees of the California State University (Humboldt) 602.01000: 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. | 31 | 26 | 12/14/06 |
| 1849M | County of Santa Cruz 602.01000: 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. | 30 | 151 | 08/16/06 |
| 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 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Kern & Kern County Hospital Authority (2019) PERB Decision No. 2659-M, where the Board held that there is a duty to bargain when an employer plans to subcontract bargaining unit work at a newly established worksite. * * *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. | 30 | 118 | 05/12/06 |
| 1825M | County of Riverside 602.01000: 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. | 30 | 78 | 03/01/06 |
| 1761M | City of Whittier 602.01000: 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. | 29 | 119 | 04/08/05 |
| 1725E | Hilmar Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 29 | 35 | 12/15/04 |
| 1682E | Desert Sands Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 28 | 241 | 08/25/04 |
| 1672H | Trustees of the California State University 602.01000: 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. | 28 | 217 | 08/06/04 |
| 1635H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 602.01000: 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. | 28 | 158 | 06/04/04 |
| 1608M | City and County of San Francisco 602.01000: 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. | 28 | 139 | 03/22/04 |
| 1519H | Regents of the University of California (Los Alamos National Laboratory) 602.01000: 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. | 27 | 67 | 05/07/03 |
| 1507H | Trustees of the California State University 602.01000: 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. | 27 | 26 | 01/08/03 |
| 1440E | Lucia Mar Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 25 | 32073 | 05/24/01 |
| 1402E | Antelope Valley Union High School District * * * OVERRULED by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525, where the Board held a change in work hours for a vacant position falls within the scope of representation, even where the change is prompted by an employer’s decision to alter its nature, direction, or level of service. * * *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; viz. 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. | 24 | 31145 | 09/05/00 |
| 1470H | Trustees of the California State University 602.01000: 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. | 26 | 33016 | 12/05/01 |
| 1374S | State of California (Department of Youth Authority) 602.01000: 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. | 24 | 31059 | 02/28/00 |
| 1317S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 602.01000: 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. | 23 | 30072 | 03/05/99 |
| 1329S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 602.01000: 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. | 23 | 30116 | 05/03/99 |
| 1326E | Chino Valley Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 23 | 30097 | 04/14/99 |
| 1296S | State of California (Department of Personnel Admin) 602.01000: 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. | 23 | 30009 | 10/22/98 |
| 1291S | State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles) 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29173 | 10/09/98 |
| 1271H | Regents of the University of California (Federated University Police Officer’s Association) 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29114 | 06/30/98 |
| 1260S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) (California Department of Forestry Firefighters) 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29083 | 04/20/98 |
| 1255H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29066 | 03/20/98 |
| 1251S | State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles) 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29062 | 02/25/98 |
| 1252H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29063 | 02/27/98 |
| 1244S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Association of Professional Scientists) 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29045 | 01/27/98 |
| 1240E | Fremont Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29026 | 12/04/97 |
| 1242E | Redwoods Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29029 | 12/19/97 |
| 1231H | Trustees of the California State University (Academic Professionals of California) 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29011 | 11/17/97 |
| 1225E | Sonoma County Office of Education 602.01000: 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. | 22 | 29005 | 11/04/97 |
| 1206E | San Ysidro School District (California School Employees Association and Its San Ysidro Chapter #154)) 602.01000: 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. | 21 | 28122 | 06/23/97 |
| 1198E | San Ysidro School District 602.01000: 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. | 21 | 28095 | 05/07/97 |
| 1188H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 602.01000: 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. | 21 | 28067 | 03/19/97 |
| 1187E | Hacienda La Puente Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 21 | 28065 | 03/17/97 |
| 1174H | Trustees of the California State University (Academic Professionals of California) 602.01000: 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. | 21 | 28019 | 11/12/96 |
| 1169H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 602.01000: 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. | 20 | 27138 | 09/12/96 |
| 1163E | Arcata Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525, pp. 2-10, where the Board held a change in work hours for a vacant position falls within the scope of representation, even where the change is prompted by an employer’s decision to alter its nature, direction, or level of service. * * *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. | 20 | 27120 | 06/26/96 |
| 1154E | El Centro School District 602.01000: 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. | 20 | 27106 | 06/07/96 |
| 1145S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees) 602.01000: 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. | 20 | 27061 | 03/08/96 |
| 1149S | State of California (Department of Corrections) (International Union of Operating Engineers) 602.01000: 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. | 20 | 27082 | 04/30/96 |
| 1106E | Moreno Valley Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 19 | 26099 | 05/19/95 |
| 1098E | Pasadena Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 19 | 26089 | 05/03/95 |
| 1092E | Marin Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 19 | 26070 | 03/21/95 |
| 1093H | California State University (California State Employees Association) * * * VACATED by California State Employees' Association v. Public Employment Relations Board (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 923 602.01000: 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. | 19 | 26079 | 04/05/95 |
| 1083E | Sierra Joint Union High School District 602.01000: 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. | 19 | 26051 | 02/17/95 |
| 1056S | State of California (Cstate Employees Association, Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 602.01000: 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. | 18 | 25129 | 09/14/94 |
| 1045E | Oakland Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 18 | 25073 | 05/03/94 |
| 1006E | Gonzales Union High School District 602.01000: 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. | 17 | 24119 | 06/25/93 |
| 0955E | Eureka City School District 602.01000: 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. | 16 | 23168 | 10/27/92 |
| 0884E | Modesto City School District 602.01000: 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. | 15 | 22099 | 06/03/91 |
| 0876E | Glendora Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 15 | 22082 | 05/16/91 |
| 0873E | Charter Oak Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 15 | 22067 | 04/04/91 |
| 0868E | Whisman Elementary School District 602.01000: 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. | 15 | 22043 | 02/14/91 |
| 0861E | Perris Union High School District 602.01000: 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. | 15 | 22018 | 12/20/90 |
| 0840S | State of California (Department of Mental Health) 602.01000: 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. | 14 | 21183 | 09/18/90 |
| 0841E | Temple City Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 14 | 21186 | 09/20/90 |
| 0814E | Temple City Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 14 | 21117 | 06/13/90 |
| 0798E | Compton Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 14 | 21079 | 03/22/90 |
| 0771H | Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers) 602.01000: 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. | 13 | 20209 | 09/28/89 |
| 0750E | Riverside Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 13 | 20147 | 06/29/89 |
| 0720E | Compton Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 13 | 20057 | 03/01/89 |
| 0722H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 602.01000: 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. | 13 | 20059 | 03/03/89 |
| 0668E | Tahoe - Truckee Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 12 | 19081 | 05/27/88 |
| 0617E | Los Angeles Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 11 | 18072 | 03/27/87 |
| 0618E | Los Angeles Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 11 | 18075 | 03/31/87 |
| 0580E | Roseville Joint Union High School District 602.01000: 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. | 10 | 17136 | 06/30/86 |
| 0571E | Riverside Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 10 | 17099 | 05/07/86 |
| 0562E | Riverside Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 10 | 17050 | 01/24/86 |
| 0562Ea | Riverside Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 10 | 17103 | 05/16/86 |
| 0565E | Victor Valley Union High School District 602.01000: 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. | 10 | 17079 | 04/10/86 |
| 2490M | County of San Joaquin 602.01000: 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. | 41 | 29 | 06/30/16 |
| 1955H | Trustees of the California State University (San Diego) 602.01000: 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. | 32 | 74 | 04/24/08 |
| 1751H | Trustees of the California State University 602.01000: 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. | 29 | 91 | 02/08/05 |
| 1748E | Alum Rock Union Elementary School District 602.01000: 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. | 29 | 73 | 02/07/05 |
| 1221H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore) * * * OVERRULED IN PART BY The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *Although the University's decision to reduce staffing in the Superblock was outside of the scope of representation, the University had an obligation to meet and negotiate over all reasonably foreseeable effects thereof; pp. 6-7. 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. | 21 | 28161 | 09/26/97 |
| 1214E | Bellflower Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 21 | 28126 | 06/30/97 |
| 0516H | Regents of the University of California (San Francisco Medical Center) 602.01000: 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. | 9 | 16187 | 08/07/85 |
| 0375E | Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District 602.01000: 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. | 8 | 15021 | 01/05/84 |
| 0373Eb | Mt. Diablo Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *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. | 8 | 15142 | 08/15/84 |
| 0371E | Mammoth Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 8 | 15015 | 12/29/83 |
| 0372E | Kern Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 8 | 15016 | 12/29/83 |
| 0364E | Anaheim City School District 602.01000: 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. | 8 | 15005 | 12/14/83 |
| 0360E | Arcohe Union School District 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14294 | 11/23/83 |
| 0356H | Regents of the University of California (Statewide University Police Association) 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14288 | 11/14/83 |
| 0357E | Calexico Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14291 | 11/22/83 |
| 0354E | Palo Verde Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14281 | 10/28/83 |
| 0339E | Salinas Union High School District 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14236 | 08/22/83 |
| 0343E | South San Francisco Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14243 | 09/02/83 |
| 0337E | Kern Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *Nature of specific demand to negotiate discussed. (Does not require specific proposal from exclusive representative.) more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14229 | 08/19/83 |
| 0296E | Colusa Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14106 | 03/21/83 |
| 0289E | Walnut Valley Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14084 | 02/28/83 |
| 0291E | Modesto City Schools 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14090 | 03/08/83 |
| 0279E | Rio Hondo Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14036 | 12/31/82 |
| 0262E | Placer Hills Union School District 602.01000: 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. | 7 | 14012 | 11/30/82 |
| 0196E | Grant Joint Union High School District 602.01000: 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. | 6 | 13064 | 02/26/82 |
| 1003E | Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 17 | 24116 | 06/24/93 |
| 0999S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 602.01000: 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. | 17 | 24112 | 06/22/93 |
| 0991E | Long Beach Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 17 | 24083 | 04/26/93 |
| 0976S | State of California (Department of General Services) 602.01000: 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. | 17 | 24050 | 02/23/93 |
| 0094E | San Mateo County Community College District 602.01000: 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. | 3 | 10080 | 06/08/79 |
| 0051E | Pajaro Valley Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 2 | 2107 | 05/22/78 |
| 0040E | Sonoma County Office of Education 602.01000: 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. | 1 | 588 | 11/23/77 |
| 0937E | Eastside Union School District 602.01000: 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. | 16 | 23084 | 06/02/92 |
| 0918E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Association of Public School Supervisory Employees) 602.01000: 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. | 16 | 23016 | 01/07/92 |
| 0912E | Willits Unified School District 602.01000: 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. | 16 | 23002 | 12/05/91 |
| 0074E | Amador Valley Joint Union High School District 602.01000: 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. | 2 | 2192 | 10/02/78 |
| 1353E | East Side Union High School District * * * OVERRULED by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525 602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525, where the Board held a change in work hours for a vacant position falls within the scope of representation, even where the change is prompted by an employer’s decision to alter its nature, direction, or level of service. * * *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. | 23 | 30174 | 09/30/99 |