All notes for Subtopic 602.04000 – Time of Implementation
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2823S | State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation A change in policy occurs on the date the employer makes a firm decision from which it never wavers, even if the decision does not take effect immediately or never takes effect. (City of Milpitas (2015) PERB Decision No. 2443-M, p. 15.) (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 23 | 06/29/22 |
| 2783H | Regents of the University of California 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation The University’s refusal to bargain over alternatives to discipline or unpaid leave for employees who did not comply with mandatory influenza vaccination policy was a failure to meet and confer in good faith prior to implementation. (pp. 29-30.) 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 * * * 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation A public agency may be privileged to place a measure on the ballot prior to completing negotiations when it is “faced with an imminent need to act prior to the statutory deadline for submitting the [measure] for the ballot.” But the statutory deadline itself is not such an “imminent need.” No evidence in the record established an “imminent need” for the County to have called a special election to place the ballot measure on the November 2020 ballot. As a result, the County’s obligation to meet and confer over the measure’s negotiable amendments before placing it on the ballot was not excused. (pp. 51-52.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Individual courts unilaterally implemented employee pension contribution changes while their Regional Committee and the exclusive representative were negotiating over the effects of those changes. The courts could not implement the changes until the negotiations resulted in an agreement or a good faith impasse unless the implementation date was based on an immutable deadline or an important managerial interest, such that a delay in implementation beyond the date chosen would effectively undermine the employer’s right to make the nonnegotiable decision. (pp. 48-49.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation 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 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation City’s argument that it decided to subcontract a classification’s work after it decided to layoff all employees in the classification comported with neither the facts nor the law. The overall record supported an inference that the City decided to subcontract the classification’s future work in conjunction with its decision to eliminate the classification. It does not matter that there was a lag between the subcontracting decision and the implementation thereof. Where an employer’s change in policy is alleged to constitute an unfair practice, the operative date for the alleged violation is generally the date when the employer made a firm decision to change the policy, even if the change itself does not take effect until a later date. (City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 27; City of Milpitas (2015) PERB Decision No. 2443-M, pp. 15-16.) PERB attributed the lag between the City’s subcontracting decision and its implementation of that decision to the City’s wait for further funding; PERB did not find that the lag demonstrated uncertainty regarding the City’s decision to use alternative means to cover the work previously done by the laid off classification. Moreover, even if the City had proven that it made no single decision about how to cover the classification’s work, but instead made a new decision every time it began a project involving work formerly done by the classification, this would nonetheless constitute an MMBA violation, since the City had not bargained regarding any allegedly separate or independent decisions on how to cover the classification’s work after the layoffs. The City did not provide the exclusive representative with advance notice of such decisions, nor did the City provide an opportunity to bargain before it made firm decisions. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2464M | City of San Diego * * * Affirmed, 5 Cal.5th 898 (2018). Remedy modified by City of San Diego (2019) PERB Decision No. 2464a-M * * * 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation 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 |
| 2443M | City of Milpitas 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation A change in policy occurs on the date a firm decision is made even if the decision is not scheduled to take effect immediately, or even if it is never implemented. The City Council’s adoption of the City Manager’s recommendation to outsource bargaining unit work constitutes the City’s firm decision to contract out. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 36 | 07/29/15 |
| 2313E | Rio Hondo Community College District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation The employer must provide notice sufficiently in advance of implementation to permit the union a reasonable amount of time to consider demanding to bargain over and to negotiate over the effects. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 197 | 03/21/13 |
| 2298M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Meeting and conferring on the implementation and effects of a non-negotiable layoff decision should commence early enough to reach completion, including resolution of an impasse, prior to implementation of the decision. Only under certain circumstances may an employer implement a non-negotiable layoff decision prior to completing the meet and confer process. Implementation permissible prior to completing meet and confer where: (1) the layoff implementation date was not arbitrary, but based on an immutable externally-established deadline, or on an important managerial interest such that delay beyond the chosen date would undermine the employer’s right to make the decision to lay off; (2) the employer gave notice of the layoff decision and implementation date sufficiently in advance of the implementation date to allow for meaningful meeting and conferring prior to the implementation; and (3) the employer met and conferred in good faith on implementation and effects prior to the implementation, and thereafter as to those subjects not resolved by virtue of the implementation. Having reached a firm decision, driven by labor cost considerations, to lay off employees, an MMBA employer must meet and confer, upon request, with the union representing the employees, both as to the implementation (including the timing, and the number and identity of employees to be laid off) and as to the effects of the layoff on the remaining employees, including post-layoff workload and safety conditions of remaining employees. Thus, where a layoff is driven by labor cost considerations, an employer must meet and confer in good faith, upon request, over the implementation and the reasonably foreseeable impacts and effects on remaining employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 137 | 12/20/12 |
| 2300H | Regents of the University of California 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation 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 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation A unilateral change occurs when a firm decision is made to change policy regarding a negotiable subject without notice and meaningful opportunity to bargain, even if the decision is not scheduled to take effect immediately, or even if it is never implemented. The Board overruled City of San Diego (2010) PERB Decision No. 2103-M to the extent it holds that a unilateral change does not occur until the decision is implemented. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 104 | 12/24/13 |
| 2360M | County of Riverside 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation An employer is not privileged to implement an agreed-upon concession made as a tentative agreement unless there was a legitimate impasse reached on negotiations as a whole, especially where the parties were exchanging package proposals at this stage in their bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 138 | 03/25/14 |
| 2287H | Trustees of the California State University 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Under HEERA, before implementing a non-negotiable decision, the parties must first negotiate over effects that have an impact on matters within the scope of bargaining. Once a firm decision is made, an employer must provide the exclusive representative with notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. When claiming that an employer’s non-negotiable decision will have an effect on a subject within the scope of bargaining, the charging party bears the burden of alleging facts demonstrating a reasonably foreseeable impact on employees’ working conditions. Because bargaining over effects contemplates that negotiations will occur prior to implementation of the non-negotiable decision, the parties must assess the effects of the decision prospectively, without the benefit of hindsight. Where the employee organization has made a timely demand for bargaining on an issue within the scope of bargaining, the employee has the following three choices: (1) accede to the demand and address the employee organization’s concerns in negotiations; (2) ask the employee organization for its negotiation justification; or (3) refuse the employee organization’s demand. In choosing the third option, the employer does so at its peril if its refusal is later determined to be unjustified. Union met its burden of establishing a prima facie case of failure to bargain effects of management decision to implement executive order governing student mental health services, where request identified reasonably foreseeable impact on workload, thereby triggering duty to bargain potential impacts prior to implementation. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 79 | 10/04/12 |
| 2262E | Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Notice of an agenda indicating a drug testing policy would be effective retroactively rendered negotiations futile. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 176 | 05/08/12 |
| 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 * * * 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation * * * 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 |
| 2115S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of Personnel Administration) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Charge did not establish that implementation of layoff occurred when employer notified union and employees of its layoff decision, which was not negotiable, and offered to negotiate the effects of the layoff. Until such time as the layoff was actually implemented, and even thereafter, the parties could have negotiated changes to the area of layoff. 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 |
| 1504E | Clovis Unified School District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation The District argues that since it has taken no action, the issue of unilateral change is not ripe for Board resolution. However, when the District conducted the election, published its intent to send the results to the JPA board of directors and to PERS without negotiating first with CSEA, and sponsored non-unit employees into the JPA, CSEA had actual notice of the District’s intent to make the change. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 15 | 12/18/02 |
| 1242E | Redwoods Community College District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Agreeing to negotiate after a unilateral change does not negate the unlawfulness of the change. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29029 | 12/19/97 |
| 1188H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation For nonexclusively represented employees, the employer's decision becomes effective when it is clear the employer decided to implement the program, not the date the employer subsequently implements the program; p. 21. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28067 | 03/19/97 |
| 1189H | Regents of the University of California (Woods, et al.) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation No prima facie case for failure to meet and discuss effects of layoff where charge fails to allege that charging parties actually requested to meet and discuss those effects; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28066 | 03/19/97 |
| 1180E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Association of Public School Supervisory Employees) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Charging party has the burden to prove that it first knew or should have known of the violation within the six months prior to filing the charge. "Should have known" requires the exercise of reasonable diligence to discover the change. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28024 | 12/06/96 |
| 1181E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Service Employees International Union Local 99) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Union's knowledge of drug policy, violation of which would subject an employee to dismissal, starts the statute of limitations period for a unilateral change even where the employer applies the policy as a "zero tolerance" policy and later dismisses an employee under the new zero tolerance policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28025 | 12/10/96 |
| 1145S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation A unilateral change occurs when an official action has been taken, not a subsequent date when the action becomes effective; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27061 | 03/08/96 |
| 1103E | Laguna Salada Union School District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation An employer's change affecting a mandatory subject of bargaining prior to the exhaustion of impasse procedures, including consideration of the factfinder's report, is an unlawful unilateral change; p. 10. An employer may implement policies reasonably comprehended within previous offers made to the union once the employer exhausts the statutory impasse procedures. The term "reasonably comprehended" excludes those changes better than the last offer and also any changes which the parties did not discuss during negotiations which are less than the status quo; p. 10. The authority to implement an adjustment in employee wages does not carry with it the unilateral authority to determine how and when to make the adjustment; p 13, fn. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26095 | 05/11/95 |
| 1092E | Marin Community College District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Changes in practice of placing former managers on the certificated salary schedule triggers obligation to bargain when the change became apparent to the exclusive representative; p. 84, proposed dec. An increase of 2-3 courses taught does not constitute sufficient change in the status quo to require negotiations; p. 92, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26070 | 03/21/95 |
| 1056S | State of California (Cstate Employees Association, Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation A unilateral change occurs when an official action has been taken, not at a subsequent date when that action becomes effective; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25129 | 09/14/94 |
| 0955E | Eureka City School District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation While the Board has held that a unilateral change occurs when official action has been taken, not when it becomes effective, the Board has not previously ruled on when the unilateral change of a permissive subject of bargaining occurs; p. 18. The nature of a permissive subject of bargaining permits an employer or an employee organization, prior to the expiration of an agreement, to take action which indicates that it does not intend to bargain a nonmandatory subject; p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23168 | 10/27/92 |
| 0696E | Lake Elsinore School District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation The District's bargaining obligation re: Mentor teacher program arises upon State approval of the District's application and subsequent grant of funds for program implementation. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19156 | 09/07/88 |
| 2311Ma | City of Escondido * * * VACATED IN PART By City of Escondido v. PERB (Cal.Ct.App., Mar. 8, 2017, No. D070462) 2017 WL 915109 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation * * * REVERSED IN PART by City of Escondido v. PERB (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 8, 2017, No. D070462) 2017 WL 915109, where the Court of Appeal found that the record did not contain substantial evidence supporting a PERB factual finding. * * *Employer’s decision to layoff full-time code enforcement officers was made prior to or simultaneously with the decision to transfer work outside of the bargaining unit. Under the circumstances presented here, it would have been futile for the union to request bargaining over the transfer. When a firm decision is made prior to an employer providing notice and an opportunity to negotiate a decision made by the employer that is within the scope of representation, the employer cannot defend on the ground that the union failed to request or demand negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 178 | 05/11/16 |
| 1213S | State of California (Department of Transportation) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Where employer wrote letter to exclusive representative on April 10, 1995, expressly stating that employer intended to implement new policy effective April 14, 1995, unilateral change is found to have occurred on April 10, 1995; pp. 9-10. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28125 | 06/26/97 |
| 0523E | Riverside Unified School District (Petrich) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation No prima facie case for unilateral change in hours of employment, where change did not occur until after negotiations had been successfully concluded. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16214 | 09/25/85 |
| 0373E | Mt. Diablo Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b and OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b and OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855* * *While District was permitted to request that Association develop detailed proposals, by the time that District responded to initial request to negotiate it had already taken unilateral action to implement the layoff, thus rendering any development of detailed proposals on issues related to the implementation of layoff futile. Unilateral conduct in the face of demand to negotiate was refusal to bargain, absent valid defense; pp. 22-23. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15017 | 12/30/83 |
| 0357E | Calexico Unified School District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Provisions in contract subject to reopeners must be observed during reopener negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14291 | 11/22/83 |
| 0353H | Regents of the University of California 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Elimination of pay differential is not continuing violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14280 | 10/27/83 |
| 0206E | Moreno Valley Unified School District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation District's implementation of last best offer following mutual declaration of impasse, but before exhaustion of impasse procedures is, absent affirmative defense, a per se unfair practice. EERA impasse procedures comtemplate a continuation of the bilateral negotiations process. Mediation is fundamentally a bargaining process; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13107 | 04/30/82 |
| 0201E | Anaheim Union High School District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation A governing board resolution unilaterally changing salaries and other terms of employment is a violation. Resolution constitutes official action even though it had a deferred effective date. Employer defenses - that it did not immediately implement the resolution and was willing to negotiate between resolution and effective date - rejected; p. 11. EERA prohibits unfair practices, not just harmful results; p. 22, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13078 | 03/26/82 |
| 0976S | State of California (Department of General Services) 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation 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 |
| 0116E | Davis Unified School District/New Haven Unified School District/Newark Unified School District/State Center Community College District/Centinela Valley Union High School District 602.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation Board rejects District argument that it had to unilaterally implement salary freeze on July 1 because it would be unable to lower after that date; pp. 11-15. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11031 | 02/22/80 |