All notes for Subtopic 602.03000 – Change In Policy
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2803E | Oxnard Union High School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Having made binding commitments regarding educational employees’ ability to work-at-home during the first full school year of pandemic, it was per se illegal for the District to repudiate its commitments. (County of Tulare (2015) PERB Decision No. 2414-M, pp. 29-30 [“a statute that encouraged the negotiation of agreements, yet permitted the parties to retract their concessions and repudiate their promises whenever they choose, would impede rather than promote good-faith bargaining”]; Standard School District (2005) PERB Decision No. 1775, adopting proposed decision 47 at p. 16 [“[t]he repudiation of an agreement (explicit or implied) is virtually the definition of an unlawful unilateral change”].) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 110 | 01/26/22 |
| 2803E | Oxnard Union High School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy PERB applies traditional rules of contract law to interpret the parties’ MOUs. (Lodi Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2723, p. 12 (Lodi).) “A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.” (Civ. Code, § 1636.) “[T]he whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.” (Civ. Code, § 1641.) Where contractual language is clear and unambiguous, it is unnecessary to go beyond the plain language of the contract itself to ascertain its meaning. (Lodi, supra, PERB Decision No. 2723, p. 13.) Where contract terms are ambiguous, PERB may look to bargaining history and past practice to discern the parties’ intent. (Ibid.) Regarding the latter, the parties’ past practice under the contract before the dispute arose, i.e., “[t]he parties’ practical construction of a contract,” provides “important evidence of their intent.” (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 110 | 01/26/22 |
| 2803E | Oxnard Union High School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy There are three primary means of establishing that an employer changed or deviated from the status quo. (Bellflower Unified School District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 10.) Specifically, a charging party satisfies this element by showing any of the following: (1) deviation from a written agreement or written policy; (2) a change in established past practice; or (3) a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 110 | 01/26/22 |
| 2852H | Regents of the University of California 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy A union can prove that an employer changed or deviated from the status quo by showing: (1) deviation from a written agreement or written policy, (2) a change in established past practice, or (3) a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. UC Santa Cruz’s September 27, 2019 letter set the status quo against which the Board measured the policy change announced in UC Santa Cruz’s November 25, 2020 letter, viz., the action alleged in the complaint to constitute the unlawful unilateral change. The September 27, 2019 letter acknowledged there were “many employees on campus with multiple staff or academic appointments which cross bargaining units and FLSA statuses.” However, nowhere in the September 27, 2019 letter did UC Santa Cruz indicate it was considering a prohibition against concurrently holding a non-exempt staff position and an exempt academic position. But its November 25, 2020 letter announced just such a policy, thereby changing the status quo. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 121 | 02/09/23 |
| 2847M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Kern County Hospital Authority 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy There are three primary means of proving that an employer changed or deviated from the status quo. Specifically, a charging party satisfies this element by showing any of the following: (1) deviation from a written agreement or written policy; (2) a change in established past practice; or (3) a newly created policy, or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (Bellflower Unified School District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 10.) Hospital Authority announced a new policy where there was none before—or applied or enforced existing policy in a new way—by declaring that the parties’ MOU bars group or class grievances and grants the Authority unilateral authority to refuse to consolidate grievances. (p. 11.) The Board rejected the Authority’s argument that the MOU implicitly disallows group and class grievances by defining a grievance as a “complaint by an employee” and using other similar singular phrasing. Omnitrans (2009) PERB Decision No. 2010-M and related cases hold that only clear and unambiguous MOU language can bar a union from pursuing collective relief through a grievance, and an MOU does not satisfy that standard where it merely defines the grievant as a singular “employee” and does not explicitly exclude group and class grievances. (Id., adopting proposed decision at p. 5; Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834, p. 22.) (p. 12.) The Authority’s claim that the parties’ MOU granted it the right to reject group, class, or consolidated grievances on purely procedural grounds, materially altered the status quo in a manner that could affect future cases. (See, e.g., Sacramento City Unified School District (2020) PERB Decision No. 2749, pp. 8-9 [employer engaged in unilateral change by refusing to allow arbitrator to decide arbitrability dispute].) (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 12/20/22 | ||
| 2820M | County of Santa Clara 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy To apply the “reasonably comprehended” standard to determine whether an employer materially changed duties or assignments, PERB compares past duties or assignments to new duties or assignments, through the eyes of a reasonable employee. (p. 8.) Because there were one or more contested, outcome-determinative facts (or mixed questions of law and fact), PERB directed the Office of the General Counsel to issue a complaint alleging that the County violated the MMBA by materially changing Clinical Nurse job assignments without providing the nurses’ union notice and an opportunity to meet and confer. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 169 | 05/12/22 |
| 2820M | County of Santa Clara 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy There are three primary means of establishing that an employer changed or deviated from the status quo: (1) a deviation from a written agreement or written policy; (2) a change in established past practice; or (3) a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (p. 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 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy “PERB has always recognized newly created, implemented or enforced policy as subject to its unilateral action doctrine.” (Pasadena Area Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2444, p. 12, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 167 | 05/05/22 |
| 2823S | State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy To determine if an employer materially changed terms and conditions of employment, PERB compares the new conditions (including duties, qualifications, and workload) with the status quo and determines if a reasonable employee would find the changes to be material. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 23 | 06/29/22 |
| 2796E | Bellflower Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy There are three primary means of establishing that an employer changed or deviated from the status quo. Specifically, a charging party satisfies this element by showing any of the following: (1) deviation from a written agreement or written policy; (2) a change in established past practice; or (3) a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 9.) While the first two alternatives require a “reversal of a previous understanding,” the third alternative does not. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 85 | 11/08/21 |
| 2783H | Regents of the University of California 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The Executive Order changed the written policy for a subset of the medical center employees, and also created a new policy for employees who work at locations other than the medical centers, as they were not previously required to receive an influenza vaccination. (p. 21.) 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 * * * 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy A ballot measure giving a police review agency authority to independently investigate County peace officer misconduct constituted a change in policy where the police review agency previously had no authority to conduct independent investigations. The ballot measure also changed: (1) investigation and disciplinary procedures and standards; (2) body worn camera policies; (3) access and use of confidential documents; and (4) access to Sheriff’s Office witnesses for an investigatory interview. (pp. 28-33.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2749E | Sacramento City Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The District deviated from the status quo, changed established past practice, and/or enforced existing policy in a new way because it asserted a non-existent legal right to decide for itself whether the salary schedule agreement incorporated into the CBA was a binding contract and whether related disputes were arbitrable. The District manifestly retained for itself sole discretion to determine the arbitrability of future grievances. Although the District’s conduct in refusing to arbitrate the grievance amounted to a unilateral change, its outright repudiation of the salary schedule provision constituted an alternative basis for finding liability. (Centinela Valley Union High School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2378, p. 8; Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2231-M, p. 17.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 58 | 11/02/20 |
| 2749E | Sacramento City Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy A single contract breach qualifies as a deviation from the status quo, change in established past practice, and/or enforcement of existing policy in a new way, if either of two circumstances are present: (1) the contract 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. (Regents of the University of California (Davis) (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]; see also, e.g., San Bernardino Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2599, p. 8; City of Davis (2016) PERB Decision No. 2494-M, p. 32; County of Santa Clara (2015) PERB Decision No. 2431, p. 19; County of Riverside (2003) PERB Decision No. 1577-M, p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 58 | 11/02/20 |
| 2749E | Sacramento City Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy An employer’s failure or refusal to process a grievance in accordance with collectively bargained procedures may be reviewed as a unilateral change. (See, e.g., Omnitrans (2010) PERB Decision No. 2143-M, pp. 6-8; County of Riverside (2003) PERB Decision No. 1577-M, p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 58 | 11/02/20 |
| 2723E | Lodi Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The parties’ contract language clearly and unambiguously provided that (1) employees maintain the right to schedule their vacation, subject to work requirements as determined by their supervisors; and (2) at the conclusion of each fiscal year, the District must pay out accrued but unused vacation time over the maximum carryover amount, except that employees experiencing an illness or injury may exceed the carryover cap if their illness or injury prevented them from taking vacation during the fiscal year. Where contractual language is clear and unambiguous, it is unnecessary to go beyond the plain language of the contract itself to ascertain its meaning. (Civ. Code, § 1638; Marysville Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 314, p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 189 | 05/26/20 |
| 2723E | Lodi Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy “PERB may interpret contract language if doing so is necessary in deciding an unfair practice charge case.” (County of Ventura (2007) PERB Decision No. 1910-M, p. 9.) Traditional rules of contract law guide interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement between a public employer and a recognized employee organization. (National City Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of National City (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1274, 1279; Grossmont Union High School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 313, pp. 15-16.) “A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.” (Civ. Code, § 1636.) “[T]he whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.” (Civ. Code, § 1641.) Thus, the Board must avoid interpreting contract language in a way which leaves a provision without effect. (State of California (Department of Corrections) (1999) PERB Decision No. 1317-S, p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 189 | 05/26/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Grievance procedures are within the scope of representation and an employer’s failure or refusal to process a grievance in accordance with collectively-bargained grievance procedures may be reviewed as a unilateral change. (p. 50.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2658M | Inland Empire Utilities Agency 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Narrowing the scope of an MOU’s grievance procedures is an unlawful unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 35 | 07/24/19 |
| 2609I | San Francisco County Superior Court and Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy No unilateral change found where the respondent’s conduct was consistent with a reading of the entire contract article in question. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 99 | 12/18/18 |
| 2546S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy An established policy may be embodied in the terms of the parties’ MOU or collective bargaining agreement. Although PERB lacks authority to enforce contracts, it may interpret contracts when necessary to resolve an alleged unfair practice. In doing so, the Board applies traditional rules of contract interpretation. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 100 | 01/29/18 |
| 2546S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The mere fact that an employer has chosen not to enforce its contractual rights does not mean it is forever precluded from doing so. Where an employer has discretion under a contract provision, it does not forfeit that discretion by failing to exercise it. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 100 | 01/29/18 |
| 2494M | City of Davis 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy PERB has found an unlawful policy change, as opposed to an isolated breach of contract, where an employer unilaterally establishes a policy that represents a conscious or apparent reversal of a previous understanding. Where a contract violation also constituted an unfair practice, the employer had unilaterally changed a term and condition of employment by interpreting a contract term that would have waived the union’s right to negotiate the change, and that interpretation was deemed by PERB to be incorrect. An alleged violation of a contract will also be an unfair practice where the employer seeks to add new terms or impose an unjustified interpretation to the agreement, or if the employer denies a contractual obligation where it once acknowledged one. Where the parties simply dispute the meaning of contract language and there has been no repudiation of any prior mutual understanding or assertion that the union waived its right to negotiate a change in terms and conditions of employment, the dispute is more accurately characterized as an isolated breach of an agreement but not an unfair practice. The plain meaning of MOU requirement to determine vacation leave requests by considering “due regard for the wishes of the employee and particular regard for the needs of the service” does not prohibit the City from taking into account factors other than public emergencies when granting or denying same day vacation requests. The mere fact that an employer has not chosen to enforce its contractual rights in the past does not mean that, ipso facto, it is forever precluded from doing so. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 33 | 06/30/16 |
| 2414M | County of Tulare * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Tulare (2016) PERB Decision No. 2414a-M 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy * * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Tulare (2016) PERB Decision No. 2414a-M. * * *Where there is no ambiguity in the operative language of an agreement, as understood in its ordinary and plain sense, there is no basis for resorting to extrinsic evidence of the parties’ bargaining history to determine their intent. The ALJ erred by relying on evidence of the parties’ subsequent bargaining history rather than clear and unambiguous language indicating what the parties had intended when they had entered into the agreement two years earlier. In every contract dispute, the analysis must begin with the parties’ intent, as demonstrated by the ordinary and plain meaning of the language of their agreement. Every term should be given effect and, wherever possible, PERB should avoid an interpretation that disregards a contractual provision as surplus language. The Board reversed the proposed decision where the ALJ ignored contract language indicating that employees “will be placed” in certain pre-determined pay ranges and job titles as an unambiguous expression of the parties’ intent when they entered into their agreement. When referring to future events, the ordinary and plain meaning of the verb “will” is the same as “shall,” which is to impose a duty or requirement. This usage is the mandatory sense that drafters typically intend and that courts typically uphold as an enforceable obligation. Where the parties agreed that employees “will be placed” in certain pay ranges and job titles upon expiration of their agreement, it was unnecessary to consider their conduct in successor negotiations to determine their intent. Once negotiated, parties should have a reasonable expectation that their collective agreements will be enforced. Contractual rights may survive the agreement that gave rise to them, if the parties so intended. Because the duty to bargain applies to current and future wages, hours and working conditions, an employer may not unilaterally impose reductions in employee wages or benefits for services already performed, even after bargaining in good faith to impasse. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 111 | 02/26/15 |
| 2423M | County of San Bernardino (Office of the Public Defender) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy A Public Defender may not implement changes in a CBA provision that grants a union the right to choose its representatives without first obtaining the consent of the union, whether the parties have agreed to a “zipper clause” or not. When parties’ past practice conflicts with the wording of their CBA, each party still maintains the right to adhere to and enforce the contractual language of the CBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 165 | 05/15/15 |
| 2398H | Regents of the University of California 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The employer’s appointment practices at UCLA School of Law repudiated the terms of the MOU as embodied in the Switkes Letter. The employer imposed its own reading of the Switkes Letter on its appointment process by appointing adjuncts to perform the work reserved to lecturers, and by not requiring adjuncts to engage in research and service in addition to what they did to qualify for the adjunct appointment in the first place. The employer ignored the clear requirement that the adjunct assignment should not be used for teaching-only assignments, and instead used the adjunct assignment as a status designation for those applicants it believed were the most distinguished. By not requiring adjuncts to engage in research and service in addition to what they did to qualify for the adjunct appointment in the first place, the employer ignored the clear requirement in a mutually negotiated letter-agreement that the adjunct assignment should not be used for teaching-only assignments. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 64 | 11/17/14 |
| 2378E | Centinela Valley Union High School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy A unilateral repudiation of a collectively bargained release time provision or a change in past practice without affording the exclusive representative the opportunity to bargain is conduct that falls squarely within PERB’s jurisdiction. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 7 | 06/17/14 |
| 2300H | Regents of the University of California 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy An employer may neither unilaterally add new terms to nor repudiate provisions in an existing collective bargaining agreement. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 141 | 12/20/12 |
| 2231M | Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Where charge alleged that respondent repudiated a provision of the expired memorandum of understanding relating to union access rights without providing notice or opportunity to bargain, claiming it had the right to do so under the management rights clause of the expired memorandum of understanding, the charge alleged sufficient facts to state a prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 111 | 01/20/12 |
| 2143M | Omnitrans 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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 |
| 2131S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Ventura Youth Correctional Facility) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The on-the-job-training form suggests there is a policy or practice that training is done during work hours. Generally, the number of employees affected by a change does not alone determine whether the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact. PERB also considers whether the employer believes or acts as if it has a right to take the action without bargaining. The charge does not allege facts that demonstrates the employer believed or acted as if it had a right to direct employees to complete training outside duty hours. There is no indication of continued application of the at-home training requirement. As filed, the charge demonstrates only an isolated incident and not a change in policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 138 | 09/21/10 |
| 2101H | Regents of the University of California (Davis) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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 |
| 2112I | Los Angeles Superior Court 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy No unilateral change violation where employer’s actions were consistent with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Where the union alleged that the employer unilaterally changed procedures for filling regular full-time assignments, the Board agent appropriately harmonized provisions of the CBA regarding the application of seniority and the employer’s authority to determine the number of employees in any status. When interpreting a CBA each provision must be read in conjunction with those around it and harmonized as a whole, so as to not leave any of the terms without meaning. 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 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy * * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M. * * *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 or past practice. Pleading or raising a bare allegation without sufficient supporting facts is insufficient for purposes of alleging a prima facie case. Where the charge alleged the employer violated past practice regarding sick leave verification and approval for vacation leave, a bare allegation that the practices were “well established,” was insufficient. The charge must allege facts to demonstrate the past practice. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 83 | 05/19/10 |
| 2105H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 ) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 74 | 04/21/10 |
| 2027M | City of Riverside 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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 breached the agreement when it applied the promotion criteria contained in the MOU to mini-bus drivers. 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 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB Decision No. 2359. * * *Unilateral change of employees’ workweek, even though change lasted only two months, had a generalized effect or continuing impact on the bargaining unit, and thus was not a mere contract violation, because the employer claimed the parties’ collective bargaining agreement allowed it to unilaterally make the change and therefore the employer might make a similar change in the future. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 36 | 01/30/09 |
| 1937M | City of Commerce 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Where charging party references a grievance procedure but does not establish what the terms or past practices of this procedure are, it does not provide sufficient facts to show that the employer breached or altered the parties’ written agreement or established past practice (the first element of a unilateral change case). Therefore, charging party does not establish that the employer’s conduct violated the terms of the grievance procedure. A single isolated breach of a contract’s grievance procedure does not state a prima facie case for a unilateral change because it fails to establish that the violation has a generalized effect or continuing impact on unit members. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 33 | 01/11/08 |
| 1910M | County of Ventura 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The County unilaterally changed a negotiated policy of the parties' memorandum of agreement which addresses grievance processing, without providing the association with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain, when it failed to process a grievance filed by the Association. County has the authority to implement mandatory overtime department-wide as allowed by the plain meaning of the MOA. Under the plain language of the MOA, an association has the right to file a grievance on behalf of an individual employee or a group of likely situated employees, as it did here. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 114 | 06/21/07 |
| 1895E | Newark Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy he District violated EERA when it failed to meet and negotiate in good faith by refusing, during the 2003-2004 re-opener negotiations, to negotiate concerning the selection of a health insurance carrier. The fact that the health insurance carrier language was contained in the Compensation Article, required the District to negotiate the Association's proposal related to that article; the District did not act in good faith in advancing its positions related to the negotiability of the health care carrier and waiver language. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 78 | 03/27/07 |
| 1863E | El Centro Elementary School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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 |
| 1825M | County of Riverside 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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 |
| 1777E | King City Joint Union High School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy When interpreting collective bargaining agreements, the Board applies traditional rules of contract law, such as the provisions of Civil Code sections 1638 and 1641. This guidance is used in unilateral change cases. Every contract requires mutual assent and the outward manifestation or expression of assent is controlling. Where the contract language is silent or ambiguous, the policy may be ascertained by examining past practice or bargaining history. Looking at the surrounding provisions under the principle of “noscitur a sociis,” the salary increase formula clearly substantiates the principle in the CBA that 65% of the appropriate revenues will be allocated to unit members. The Board’s interpretation harmonizes the potential conflict between provisions of the CBA and so “gives a reasonable, lawful and effective meaning to all the terms” as provided in Civil Code 1641. “Line 1100” is not a technical term under Civil Code section 1645 because it is not a term understood by the union negotiators, who are teachers and who are not school district budget officers. The parties’ outward expressions supports the Board’s interpretation as shown in District spreadsheets with a line item for “unit member salaries.” Looking at bargaining history and the parties’ testimony, substitute teachers, walk-on coaches, and summer school and independent study teachers are not members of the bargaining unit. The District did not provide evidence to contradict the fact that it failed to include required revenue sources in the CBA revenue computation. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 164 | 09/14/05 |
| 1760H | Trustees of the California State University 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy To determine whether the university departed from its past policy or practice when it adopted Skelly hearing instructions, the Board must first interpret the language of the policy at issue. The plain language of the policy must be accepted if it is clear and unambiguous. Where any ambiguity exists, it is proper to rely on extrinsic evidence to ascertain the meaning of the policy; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 105 | 03/30/05 |
| 1717E | Parlier Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Board rejected union’s argument that district breach contract policy concerning finality of hearing officer’s decision. Regardless of any ambiguity in the contract language, Education Code section 45113, as it existed at that time, prohibited the district from delegating its authority over disciplinary actions. Thus, by statute, hearing officer’s decision was not final but rather subject to adoption by the district. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 23 | 11/30/04 |
| 1695M | City of Ontario 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The allegation that a manager’s statement that one provision of the MOU is “no longer necessary” because it was covered under another section of the MOU does not state a prima facie case of unilateral change. (With regard to the allegation that requiring a deadline to request an oral hearing comprised a unilateral change in past practice, the pertinent MOU provision, which allows a response to and review of proposed disciplinary actions, contains no clear timelines for these events to occur other than the requirement of 10 working days advance notice before the disciplinary action is implemented. Although notices of termination contained a deadline to request a meeting, AFSCME provided no evidence of a past practice not requiring a deadline to request an oral presentation. There is no evidence that AFSCME requested an oral presentation, only that it complained about the deadline imposed in the notice. Therefore, there is no evidence of unilateral change. With regard to the allegation that the appeal must occur before the employees are terminated, under the parties’ MOU, employees are not entitled to a hearing before the effective date of their termination; rather, employees have the right to appeal 14 calendar days after the disciplinary action is imposed. Therefore, AFSCME has not provided evidence of unilateral change. The City has conformed to the terms of the MOU and thus has not unilaterally changed disciplinary procedures. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 259 | 09/27/04 |
| 1674E | Fresno County Office of Education 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Despite COE’s framing of the issue as “assignments,” the relocations of Nolt and Allison fit within the Involuntary Transfer provision of the CBA. COE did not follow specified procedures under the collective bargaining agreement before involuntarily transferring Nolt and Allison. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 219 | 08/19/04 |
| 1633E | Fullerton Joint Union School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Union alleged that District unlawfully changed employee work schedules. District defended action as permitted by contract. Board held that contract language not clear and unambiguous, but reasonably susceptible to union’s interpretation. Thus, union established prima facie case and complaint should issue. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 155 | 05/19/04 |
| 1608M | City and County of San Francisco 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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 |
| 1563M | City of Pittsburg 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy City Council’s use of a consultant to review and recommend what action to take in response to two grievances filed by union is a matter of managerial prerogative that is not negotiable. No facts to support union’s contention that City Council delegated its decision making authority in violation of the contract. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 26 | 12/08/03 |
| 1584H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy University’s imposition of new fee applicable to all students, including its employees enrolled in courses, did not breach contract where contract did not require the waiver or reduction of all fees or a percentage of all fees, or otherwise prohibit the imposition of new fees. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 61 | 01/13/04 |
| 1360E | Los Angeles County Office of Education (Burton) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Charging Party did not have standing to allege the District unilaterally changed the Representation Rights article of the Agreement between District and recognized employee organization. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31016 | 11/03/99 |
| 1337S | State of California (Water Resources Control Board) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy In the instant case the State's internet/intranet policy expanded the definitions of "incompatible uses of state facilities" and "misuse of state property." As a result, the State's internet/intranet usage policy constituted a negotiable departure from its existing statement of incompatible activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30136 | 07/16/99 |
| 1455E | San Diego Community College District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Proposals which define or expand a union's right of access are negotiable. Here the parties were governed by a provision from the previous exclusive representative's contract with the District which set forth a joint determination of reasonable regulation of the intrasite mail system. The appropriate test here was whether the District had committed a unilateral change by refusing to deliver certain memos via the system; p. 2, warning letter. AFT had not demonstrated that the District implemented a change in policy. The CBA provided that no materials could be sent through the system which were defamatory of members or representatives of either party. The memorandums which the District refused to deliver attacked the good name or reputation of District representatives, and therefore the District was under no obligation to circulate them; pp. 2-3, warning letter. Claims that the District committed a unilateral change by imposing its own remedy of refusal to deliver, that the District waived its right to prohibit delivery by not asking for a meeting with the Union to discuss the refused delivery, and that the District should have delivered the letters and filed a grievance over their defamatory nature, were rejected. The issue was not whether the District might have chosen another method to resolve the matter. The question was whether the charging party established a prima facie case of a unilateral change. Here the subject materials were defamatory, and charging party was not permitted to use the intrasite mail service to transmit them; pp. 1-2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32099 | 07/31/01 |
| 1374S | State of California (Department of Youth Authority) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Youth Authority's change of pattern of union representation at one institution is not a mere default in a contractual obligation but a change in policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31059 | 02/28/00 |
| 1362E | Morgan Hill Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Where the district is acting in accordance with the parties final agreement, the charge failed to state a prima facie violation of EERA; p. 3, warning letter. Where the wage increase provision of the parties' final agreement includes language which differs from that of the tentative agreement, and the final agreement language is clear and unambiguous, it is unnecessary to go beyond the plain language to ascertain its meaning; p. 3. In interpreting contract language, the Board examines bargaining history to determine the intent of the parties only if the language of the contract is found to be ambiguous; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31024 | 12/10/99 |
| 1317S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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. Where the language of the parties' overtime policy side letter is clear and unambiguous, it is unnecessary to go beyond the plain meaning of that language; p. 8. Even if past practice is taken into account, failure to exercise contractual rights in the past, does not preclude the employer from doing so in the future, Marysville at p. 10; p. 9. The Board looked to section 1638 of the California Civil Code for guidance in the interpretation of the contractual language which states, in part: "INTENTION TO BE ASCERTAINED FROM LANGUAGE. The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity." Additionally, the Board considered Civil Code section 1641 which states, in part: "EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO EVERY PART OF CONTRACT. The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other."; p. 7. 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 |
| 1296S | State of California (Department of Personnel Admin) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Contract provision which is limited "to 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) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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. Provisions of expired collective bargaining agreement covering the development and establishment of performance standards constitute past practice of the parties until such time as bargaining over a successor agreement has been completed by either reaching agreement or concluding impasse proceedings; p. 3, fn. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29173 | 10/09/98 |
| 1270E | San Bernardino City Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *Employer's failure to require sick leave verification consistently in the past does not preclude it from doing so in the future; p. 54, proposed decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29113 | 06/22/98 |
| 1259E | Fall River Joint Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Where letter to employee references appropriate section of CBA and states that "transfer will not be effective until you have had an opportunity, if you wish, to meet with me to discuss the District's reasons for your transfer" and employee does not pursue meeting to discuss transfer, it was not established that District had breached CBA provision by failing to provide employee an opportunity to meet and discuss reasons for the transfer; p. 25. Where District acknowledges policy in CBA but through error or disagreement fails to meet its contractual obligation by incorrectly stating that employee is only qualified for one vacancy, the dispute is over the application of the CBA provision and not the underlying policy embodied in the contract, the action stating that employee only qualifies for one position is not enough to constitute a unilateral change in violation of EERA; p. 26. qualifies for one position is not enough to constitute a unilateral change in violation of EERA; p. 26. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29082 | 04/08/98 |
| 1251S | State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Where agreement provides that employees receive a stipend when certain conditions are met, and the charging party does not allege that employees who meet those conditions fail to receive the stipend, charging party has not demonstrated a unilateral change of the agreement; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29062 | 02/25/98 |
| 1240E | Fremont Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Abandoning contractual rehiring 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 |
| 1243H | Trustees of the California State University (Academic Professionals of California) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy CSU's refusal to make a one time payment to one bargaining unit member was not a unilateral change because the action did not have a generalized effect or continuing impact on the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members. (Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196; Pajaro Valley Unified School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 51; Davis Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 116.) more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29030 | 12/22/97 |
| 1236E | East Side Union High School District (Hernandez) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Where charging party fails to demonstrate that a contract violation also has a generalized effect or continuing impact on the terms and conditions of employment, the charge does not state a prima facie unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29019 | 12/01/97 |
| 1231H | Trustees of the California State University (Academic Professionals of California) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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 |
| 1186E | Hacienda La Puente Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Although impacting only one employee, the District's belief that the management rights clause authorized it to unilaterally change a unit member's shift illustrates that the decision was a change in policy and not simply an isolated breach of contract. Also, there is no evidence to suggest the District would refrain from changing more employee's shifts pursuant to the management rights clause; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28056 | 02/27/97 |
| 1161E | Santa Rosa Junior College (Aune) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Exclusive representative has exclusive right to elevate a grievance to arbitration, employer cannot be compelled to arbitrate by employee, employer refusal to do so is not an unfair practice; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27114 | 06/26/96 |
| 1083E | Sierra Joint Union High School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy When the contract is clear and unambiguous on its face, Board does not need to go beyond plain languuage of the contract to ascertain meaning; p. 11, 12 and 18. Where contract language ambiguous, extrinsic evidence (bargaining history, parties' conduct, etc.) is properly considered by Board to determine the meaning of the contract; p. 11, 12 and 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26051 | 02/17/95 |
| 1078E | San Jacinto Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Change in work hours of maintenacne employees assigned to work football games resulted in a change of hours as some employees who worked the District's new schedule loss income in the form of overtime compensation; p. 21, proposed dec. District did not carry its burden showing that it established either a new librarian technician or a health clerk position at an elementary school. Instead, the ALJ found that the District unilaterally changed the hours of the positions which were temporarily vacant; p. 28, proposed dec. The ALJ concluded that a reduction or other change in hours of a vacant position is a matter within the scope of bargaining inasmuch as it affects the "collective interests" of bargaining unit members. In this case, the net effect of the District's changes was an actual diminution of unit work; p. 28, proposed dec. this case, the net effect of the District's changes was an actual diminution of unit work; p. 28, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26036 | 12/22/94 |
| 1077H | University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy In determining whether employer action repudiates contract, the rules of contract interpretation are used. These include consideration of extrinsic evidence when the contract language is ambigous. The evidence may be received only to establish a meaning to which the language of the contract is reasonably susceptible; p. 29, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26035 | 12/16/94 |
| 1072H | Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy No unilateral change where the action taken by the employer does not alter or change the status quo. A unilateral repudiation by the union of a bilateral agreement is invalid. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26030 | 12/07/94 |
| 1056S | State of California (Cstate Employees Association, Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The state did not commit an unlawful unilateral change when it acted in compliance with the provisions of the expired CBA in changing class size; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25129 | 09/14/94 |
| 1050E | Poway Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The plain meaning of the agreement, that the supervision of student activities may be required, is not superseded by the previous practice of using only volunteers, and therefore the assignment of non-volunteers is not an unlawful unilateral change of policy; p. 3, warning letter. An employer is not forever precluded from enforcing its contractual rights although it has not previously enforced them; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25100 | 06/13/94 |
| 0955E | Eureka City School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Once agreement is reached concerning a permissive subject and it is embodied in the collective bargaining agreement, the parties are bound by its terms until its expiration or unless modified by the parties; p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23168 | 10/27/92 |
| 0907H | Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy UC violated 3571(b) and (c) of HEERA when it injected criteria not agreed upon by the parties into the determination of post-six-year appointments, thereby unilaterally inplementing a change in the parties' agreed upon policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22166 | 10/01/91 |
| 0883E | Lodi Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Board affirmed dismissal of unilateral change allegation on the ground that employer action in accord with parties' agreements and current practice. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22095 | 05/30/91 |
| 0873E | Charter Oak Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy The charge failed to state a prima facie case of failure to bargain in good faith where, after second impasse, the District failed to implement all of the tentative agreements reached by the parties, implemented two provisions from its last, best and final offer and retained provisions of the prior expired MOU on other issues. The expired MOU stated that tentative agreements were to be "set aside to be later incorporated into a final contractual agreement," pp. 14-15. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22067 | 04/04/91 |
| 0861E | Perris Union High School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Even if District required to implement insurance committee recommendation, but refused to do so, Association's allegations in this case constitute, at most, a pure contract violation and PERB has no authority to enforce agreements between parties; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22018 | 12/20/90 |
| 0855E | Yuba Community College District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Board affirms ALJ's conclusion that employer did not implement a unilateral change in health benefit plan where contract provision implied that plan might evolve over time; p. 13, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22008 | 12/14/90 |
| 0841E | Temple City Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Unambiguous contract provisions required the District to increase unit member's fringe benefit contributions in amount equal to yearly increases in premiums. The fact that contract contained reopeners did not excuse District's failure to maintain status quo by paying increases in health insurance premiums pending completion of negotiations; p. 25-27, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21186 | 09/20/90 |
| 0814E | Temple City Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Board reversed dismissal of charge alleging unilateral change in method of fringe benefit allocation; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21117 | 06/13/90 |
| 0818E | Oakland Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Resolution calling for use of nonvested forfeitures to be used toward employer contributions to annuity plan was consistent with contract, since IRS regulations require that they be used toward future contributions or toward administrative costs and contract provided that administrative costs be paid out of the contributions; pp. 15-20. Fact that District had not previously complied with IRS regulations does justify continued noncompliance; p. 20. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21129 | 06/21/90 |
| 0766E | Cajon Valley Union School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy In the absence of salary-setting authority vested in a civil service commission, it remains an unfair practice for the employer to alter the clear terms of a collective bargaining agreement with respect to salary range changes due to reclassification recommendations; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20198 | 09/15/89 |
| 0639E | Riverside Unified School District (Petrich) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Evidence failed to show contract breach or departure from past practice. Introduction at arbitration of rebuttal documents that were not used as basis for disciplinary action; even if K breach, no continuing impact or generalized effect. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19003 | 11/23/87 |
| 0625E | Fountain Valley Elementary School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Contract repudiation not excused by providing notice and opportunity to bargain. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18115 | 06/23/87 |
| 0570E | Victor Valley Community College District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy No unilateral change found where District's interpretation of the contract is most reasonable. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17091 | 05/02/86 |
| 0555E | Butte Community College District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy No unilateral change in transfer policy where contract gave employer great flexibility in transferring employees; where no reliable bargaining history or evidence of special usage or meaning of term, ordinary definition properly applied; party not precluded from exercising contract rights merely because it hadn't done so previously. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17037 | 12/30/85 |
| 2491M | City of Montebello 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Charging party failed to prove its prima facie case of a unilateral change in employee job duties where misclassification affected only two employees in separate departments with no common supervision or policy. Charging party did not establish that two apparently separate breaches of its memorandum of understanding had a generalized effect and continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment where the City denied a grievance on procedural grounds and did not argue that it was authorized by statute, contract or other legal authority to assign duties in contravention of established classifications and memorandum of understanding. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 30 | 06/30/16 |
| 1739M | Oakland Housing Authority 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Board dismissed charge alleging that employer violated contract in assigning bargaining unit work to non-regular employees. Board dismissed charge as neither contract nor past practice established restrictions on the work assigned to non-regular employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 62 | 01/26/05 |
| 0528E | Eureka City School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy No unilateral change found where the union failed to first prove the existing policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16223 | 10/08/85 |
| 0513E | Riverside Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy No unilateral change where employer has right to require authorization for sick leaves and did so. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16159 | 06/21/85 |
| 0505E | Santa Paula School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Isolated discriminatory act insufficient to find unilateral change by contract repudiation. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16128 | 05/07/85 |
| 0499E | Los Rios Community College District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Voting procedures for reclassification review board consistent with parties' agreement in negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16105 | 03/21/85 |
| 0487E | Victor Valley Union High School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Employer actions consistent with contract. No violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16085 | 02/15/85 |
| 0482E | Modesto City Schools and High School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy No prima facie case - alleged conduct consistent with contract. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16061 | 01/16/85 |
| 0407E | Los Angeles Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Prima facie allegation of unilateral change is stated where employer unilaterally instituted new practice for distributing overtime work and relevant contract provision is ambiguous. Evidentiary record necessary to determine intent, and where act is consistent with contract language. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15166 | 09/14/84 |
| 0401E | Inglewood Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Absent some evidence of contrary intent or established practice, district did not repudiate argument when it based employee's discharge on excessive absences and failure to verify illness; p. 38, prop. dec. As union failed to show district refused to go to arbitration or engaged in conduct which could be construed as a repudiation of grievance polices or practices, Board dismissed allegation that district failed to process grievance; p. 41, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15154 | 08/29/84 |
| 0364E | Anaheim City School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Grievance procedure, including provision for advisory arbitration, survives expiration of agreement absent clear evidence to the contrary; p. 19. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15005 | 12/14/83 |
| 0357E | Calexico Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Employer's unilateral freeze of step and column increase independently a violation even though also contract repudiation. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14291 | 11/22/83 |
| 0347E | Modesto City Schools 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Contract is ambiguous as to number of evaluations that might be performed, so past practice is examined to ascertain authority of employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14259 | 09/27/83 |
| 0296E | Colusa Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy In light of credited testimony of first-hand witnesses as to intent of parties upon entering the contract, District's argument in support of a different construction of contract language was unpersuasive; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14106 | 03/21/83 |
| 0286E | Chico Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy No violation under Grant Joint Union HSD (1982) PERB Decision No. 196 where sick leave verfication requirements during sick out were a reasonable application of the contract's provisions; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14077 | 02/22/83 |
| 0196E | Grant Joint Union High School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy District deliberately repudiated transfer article in contract by restricting eligibility for vacant positions and preventing senior teachers from seeking some of the "better jobs." This act constitutes new transfer policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13064 | 02/26/82 |
| 1003E | Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy District is responsible to provide educational supplies under the CBA when the ratio of teacher to students is exceeded, no matter how short or long the duration of the time period; pp. 2-3. Hiring of a teacher was sufficient to lower the student/teacher ratio within the parameters of the CBA and thus no breach of the CBA occurred; p. 14, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24116 | 06/24/93 |
| 0999S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy To determine whether a unilateral change has occurred, the status of the written agreement between the parties must be analyzed to determine whether it includes provisions concerning area of layoff, and if so, whether the terms of that agreement arguably were breached; p. 8. Traditionally, an employer must maintain certain terms contained in an expired contract until such time as bargaining over a successor agreement has been completed either by reaching agreement or impasse; p. 8. 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. 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 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy No violation where District's conduct violated the contract, but there was no evidence that this contract violation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members; p. 12. Where there is insufficient evidence to show an established past practice, Board must look to the language of the collective bargaining agreement; p. 9. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24083 | 04/26/93 |
| 0995S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California State Employees Association) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Ground rule agreements represent a contractual obligation for purposes of determining whether a unilateral change from them constitutes a violation; p. 6. The unambiguous terms of the parties' ground rules lead to the conclusion that the state has agreed to released time only for negotiating sessions; p. 7. Temporarily authorizing a higher level of released time than that required by the negotiated ground rules does not create an obligation to continue to do so indefinitely; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24091 | 05/10/93 |
| 0976S | State of California (Department of General Services) 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy 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 |
| 0134E | San Ysidro School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy District unlawfully repudiated agreement to provide one days release time for teacher-negotiators, this conduct along with other conduct was sufficient to give rise to a section 3543.5(c) violation; pp. 13-14. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11105 | 06/19/80 |
| 0137E | San Diego Unified School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Employer's breach of no-reprisal clause after strike-settling agreement, without prior notice, was unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11115 | 06/19/80 |
| 0924E | Santa Maria-Bonita School District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy District fails to provide dismissal hearing. No unilateral change found where contract does not address procedures for nonreemployment of probationary employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23042 | 02/24/92 |
| 0915E | Compton Community College District 602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change In Policy Failure to follow ground rule or procedures for ratification are a mere breach of contract and not a unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23012 | 12/20/91 |