All notes for Subtopic 602.05000 – Impact and Extent

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2680M County of Santa Clara
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Electing to staff a particular shift with a non-bargaining unit peace officer instead of a bargaining unit employee had foreseeable effects on wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit employees, specifically diminution in collective strength of the unit and the loss of hours and overtime opportunities. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text.
10/31/19
2680M County of Santa Clara
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Although no particular bargaining unit employee was displaced because the County’s facility was newly opened, the County’s action had a generalized effect and continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment inasmuch as the bargaining unit suffered the ongoing loss of work opportunities and collective strength. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.
10/31/19
2611M County of Orange
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Employer’s changes to union release time policies and practices had more than a de minimis impact on employees’ and their representatives’ representational rights. (p. 12.) Because of its relationship to employer-employee relations and its direct impact on employees’ wages and hours of employment, the employer’s changes, unlike in Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont (2009) 39 Cal.4th 623, resulted in denials of paid release time employees would have otherwise received under the employer’s past practices. (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text.
4310112/19/18
2599E San Bernardino Community College District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
By defending its conduct as authorized by the management rights clause of the collective bargaining agreement, employer demonstrates a sufficiently generalized effect or continuing impact to qualify as a unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.
438512/05/18
2494M City of Davis
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
The duration of the unilateral act does not necessarily determine whether there was a unilateral change. Nor does a temporary change immunize an employer from a finding that it has unlawfully changed working conditions. Nor does the fact that only one employee was immediately affected determine whether there was a unilateral change, as even a change to a vacant bargaining unit position may be negotiable. Under PERB precedent, even if an employer’s action affects only one employee, it nonetheless has a generalized effect or continuing impact on the unit members’ terms and conditions of employment if based on the employer’s assertion of a contractual or other legal right to act unilaterally. Employer may not rely on the practice in departments outside of the bargaining unit to establish a binding past practice permitting it to unilaterally implement a negotiable term or condition of employment. What occurs in other departments with other bargaining units is irrelevant to working conditions in the bargaining unit in question. When there is no evidence that the union knew about the use of performance improvement plans in other departments outside of the bargaining unit in question, it cannot be said that this was a mutually accepted past practice. more or view all topics or full text.
413306/30/16
2431M County of Santa Clara
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
The reversal or rescission of a unilateral change does not excuse or cure the alleged violation or otherwise render it moot where the respondent maintains that it has the right to repeat the complained-of conduct. Where, as here, the respondent asserts that its conduct was authorized by the collective bargaining agreement, the charging party has demonstrated that the alleged unilateral change had a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment for the purpose of stating a prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text.
3918106/10/15
2443M City of Milpitas
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Bargaining unit members were laid off and/or their work was transferred to another division within the department of public works or outsourced to a third-party employer. Thus the City’s change in policy had both a generalized effect and continuing impact upon street, tree and park maintenance supervisors who were laid off and their duties either outsourced to outside employers or transferred to other employees within the department of public works. more or view all topics or full text.
403607/29/15
2287H Trustees of the California State University
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
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.
10/04/12
2218E Pasadena Area Community College District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Decision to cancel winter intersession classes was outside scope of representation. No violation of duty to bargain effects, where no demand to bargain negotiable effects of decision was ever made. more or view all topics or full text.
368011/09/11
2145M West Contra Costa Healthcare District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Employer’s requirement that incumbent union’s non-employee organizers sign in and wear an identification badge to access non-public areas of the employer’s hospital during an election campaign had a de minimis impact on the union’s access rights. Under Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont, the requirement did not have a significant and adverse effect on a subject within the scope of representation and thus the employer had no duty to meet and confer before adopting and implementing the requirement. more or view all topics or full text.
35511/30/10
2092E Desert Sands Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
In cases alleging a non-negotiable decision had an effect on work hours, the charging party bears the burden of alleging facts establishing an actual impact on employees’ work hours. The impact must be reasonably certain to occur and causally related to the non-negotiable decision. Consequently, PERB will not find an unlawful unilateral change when the alleged effect on terms and conditions of employment is “indirect and speculative.” more or view all topics or full text.
343902/01/10
1876Ha Trustees of the California State University
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Even when a decision is not within scope, an employer is obligated to provide the exclusive representative with notice and an opportunity to bargain the effects of the decision on matters within scope. However, the union must demand to bargain the effects of the decision and the demand must clearly identify the negotiable effects. Absent such an identification, the employer has no duty to bargain. With regard to the nature of the identified effect, the Board has ruled that the union must show an actual effect or impact to a negotiable matter. Said another way, a unilateral change that does not actually change a condition of employment is not unlawful. more or view all topics or full text.
337304/15/09
2104M County of Mendocino
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
No violation where charge alleged unilateral change when employer sought to recoup overpayments based on rescission of salary increases, where the employer in reasonably short order desisted from collection of overpaid compensation and no evidence demonstrated a change of generalized effect or continuing impact. more or view all topics or full text.
347404/21/10
2070H Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
No prima facie case of unilateral change when charge failed to establish that employer removed bargaining unit work from unit members or that nonunit employees began performing duties previously performed exclusively by unit members. Charge also failed to establish that any reallocation of bargaining unit work had a negotiable effect on unit members’ terms and conditions of employment. more or view all topics or full text.
3317310/15/09
1942C Fresno County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
The addition, without notice or opportunity to bargain, of the Realtime reporting requirements in the job description for court reporters which mandated use of additional equipment and software, technical knowledge, and customizing the Realtime dictionary, where prior job description required only use of a stenograph machine, constituted a unilateral change within the scope of representation. These Realtime reporting requirements had a generalized effect given they impacted the terms and conditions of all court reporters hired after approval of the job description. However, because we have determined that the change was non-negotiable under the Trial Court Act’s scope of representation provisions, the Court’s implementation of the change is not an unlawful unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.
323801/31/08
1827E Los Angeles Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
When the duties performed by unit and non-unit employees have traditionally overlapped, there is no unlawful transfer to work when the quantity of work performed by non-unit employees increases and the quantity of work performed by unit employees decreases. Sheriff’s deputies have long performed security along side school district police demonstrating overlapping duties. more or view all topics or full text.
308503/08/06
1664M City and County of San Francisco
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Local 790 did not provide any specifics on how the City’s reorganization and relocation of work units impacted terms and conditions of employment or of any attempts to demand bargaining over the impacts. Therefore, the Board dismissed these claims of unilateral change. more or view all topics or full text.
2823107/27/04
1682E Desert Sands Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Transfer of installation work is a permanent change in policy and must be negotiated. more or view all topics or full text.
2824108/25/04
1577M County of Riverside
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
A grievance on behalf of one or a few individuals has a generalized effect or continuing impact on the unit members’ terms and conditions of employment because the action is based upon the employer’s belief that it had a contractual right to take the action without negotiating with the union. more or view all topics or full text.
284512/31/03
1630M County of Placer
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Standard for past practice: it must be unequivocal, clearly enunciated and acted upon, readily ascertainable over a reasonable period of time as a fixed and established practice. more or view all topics or full text.
2815205/18/04
1381S State of California (Department of Corrections)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
The State's elimination of a Saturday correctional officer who covered the library concern safety and health of librarians. Health and safety is one of the more fundamental areas of concern in a collective bargaining relationship and is within the scope of representation. Removing the officer diminished the safety of affected employees. more or view all topics or full text.
243108504/25/00
1391S State of California (Department of Corrections)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Supervising cooks were involved in supervision training and assignment of food preparation work. The quantity of supervision work was decreased and is not negotiable under Eureka. However, correctional officers began to perform training in food preparation, and began assignment of food preparation work, despite the fact that supervising cooks had done this work exclusively in the past. The transfer of work in these two areas constituted violations under Eureka. The Board has yet to deal with a situation where there is a severe redistribution of overlapping duties from unit to nonunit employees. In light of its finding here that nonunit employees began to perform duties previously performed exclusively by unit employees, it was again unnecessary for the Board to address the question of severe redistribution. more or view all topics or full text.
243111206/26/00
1392S State of California (Department of Corrections)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Supervising cooks were involved in supervision training and assignment of food preparation work. The quantity of supervision work was decreased and is not negotiable under Eureka. However, correctional officers began to perform training in food preparation, and began assignment of food preparation work, despite the fact that supervising cooks had done this work exclusively in the past. The transfer of work in these two areas constituted violations under Eureka. The Board has yet to deal with a situation where there is a severe redistribution of overlapping duties from unit to nonunit employees. In light of its finding here that nonunit employees began to perform duties previously performed exclusively by unit employees, it was again unnecessary for the Board to address the question of severe redistribution. more or view all topics or full text.
243111306/26/00
1390S State of California (Department of Corrections)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Supervising cooks were involved in supervision training and assignment of food preparation work. The quantity of supervision work was decreased and is not negotiable under Eureka. However, correctional officers began to perform training in food preparation, and began assignment of food preparation work, despite the fact that supervising cooks had done this work exclusively in the past. The transfer of work in these two areas constituted violations under Eureka. The Board has yet to deal with a situation where there is a severe redistribution of overlapping duties from unit to nonunit employees. In light of its finding here that nonunit employees began to perform duties previously performed exclusively by unit employees, it was again unnecessary for the Board to address the question of severe redistribution. more or view all topics or full text.
243111106/26/00
1318S State of California (Employment Development Department)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
A change that is pervasive and predominate within a division of a state agency is sufficient to constitute a generalized impact; pp. 9-11. The defense that the past practice was unauthorized and violated stated policy was not supported by the record in this case and was rejected; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text.
233007303/05/99
1294E Kern High School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Charging party, an individual, lacks standing to assert a unilateral change violation against the District based on the District's one time refusal to process a withdrawal from membership under the contract; p. 3, partial warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
233000810/22/98
1287E Antelope Valley Union High School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Although district was correct that arbitration clause did not survive expiration of the CBA, district's erroneous view of law that grievance procedures did not survive expiration of agreement was not linked to a changed policy; evidence was only of isolated incidents which did not reach to the level of unilateral change; pp. 15-16, proposed dec. No unilateral change was proven with regard to action found to be an isolated breach of the CBA established disciplinary procedures; p. 15, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
222916809/25/98
1260S State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) (California Department of Forestry Firefighters)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
A change in health benefits plans is negotiable only if the change has a material or significant effect or impact on the actual benefits received by employees; p. 12. It is not enough to theorize or speculate that a change in benefits could impact employees, but an actual effect on employees caused by the benefit-related change must be shown by the charging party by a preponderance of the evidence; p. 12 and p. 14. The actual benefits received by employees pursuant to the CBA, even if not specifically listed in the current or former CBA, represents the status quo which the state is bound to maintain and any unilateral change resulting in a significant impact on these actual benefits, may violate the Dills Act; p. 13. Modest impact ($9 per employee per year) does not constitute significant impact of union care benefits; p. 19. Modest impact ($9 per employee per year) does not constitute significant impact of union care benefits; p. 19. more or view all topics or full text.
222908304/20/98
1259E Fall River Joint Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Where District acknowledges policy in CBA but through error or disagreement fails to meet its contratual 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. A mandatory transfer policy affecting multiple teachers clearly has a generalized effect or continuing impact on the terms and conditions of employment of those bargaining unit members requires the District to provide the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain over that policy; p. 29. more or view all topics or full text.
222908204/08/98
1186E Hacienda La Puente Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
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.
212805602/27/97
1150S State of California (Department of Developmental Services) (International Union of Operating Engineers)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Withdrawal of a first level grievance response where State responded at second level and was willing to proceed is not a unilateral change; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text.
202708705/09/96
1106E Moreno Valley Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
The reassignment of employees to different shifts was a permanent change, having a generalized and continuing impact upon their terms and conditions of employment. The fact that only two employees were affected does not mitigate against this finding; p. 9, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
192609905/19/95
1098E Pasadena Community College District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
It is axiomatic that the bargaining obligation of a public school employer extends only to the positions within the bargaining unit; p. 9, proposed dec. For a unilateral change to be in violation of the obligation to bargain, it must have "a generalized effect or continuing impact upon the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members;" p. 9, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
192608905/03/95
1078E San Jacinto Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Even though policy change affected only two employees and was in effect for only three weeks, this was sufficient to conclude that the District's action amounted to a change of policy of material impact upon terms and conditions of employment of unit employees; pp. 32-33, proposed dec. A two month change in overtime opportunities for a few groundskeepers sufficient to be a generalized effect or continuing impact. Loss of opportunity for overtime constitutes a material and significant effect or impact upon terms and conditions of employment to constitute a change in policy; p. 32, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
192603612/22/94
1045E Oakland Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
In cases involving changes in health plans and health plan administrators, the change is negotiable only if it has a material or significant effect or impact on the actual benefits received by employees; p. 3. A change in the cost to employees of the health benefits received is a material and significant impact requiring negotiations. more or view all topics or full text.
182507305/03/94
1033E Healdsburg Union Elementary School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
To demonstrate that a change in duties during the workday is negotiable, a charging party must show that the change has an impact on the employees' workday it will not be presumed; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text.
182503001/06/94
0911E Cloverdale Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
District unilaterally modified fourth and fifth grade teachers' work day schedule by eliminating 45 minute preparation period, increasing teachers' instructional day by a corresponding 45 minutes, and adding two new subjects to the basic teaching assignment. "Employers are generally free to alter the instructional schedule without prior notification . . . ." Imperial Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 825; p. 16. more or view all topics or full text.
152217911/20/91
0840S State of California (Department of Mental Health)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
A violation requires a change in policy which has a generalized effect or continuing impact. more or view all topics or full text.
142118309/18/90
0835E Los Angeles Unified School District (Association of Public School Supervisory Employees)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Facts alleged fail to reflect that demotion was a deviation from disciplinary policies and, even if it was a deviation, no facts alleged that would constitute a change in policy; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text.
142117008/30/90
0795E Jamestown Elementary School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Employer unlawfully changed vacation pay formula for 2 employees (thereby making formula the same for all part-time employees), where evidence showed there had been two distinct policies--one for instructional aides and one for other part-time employees; number of employees affected not always indicative of whether policy change has occurred; pp. 5-6. No unilateral change where employer reasonably relied on agreement of union reps. acting with apparent authority; pp. 22-23, proposed dec. (Writ summarily denied.) more or view all topics or full text.
142106903/20/90
0666E Lake Elsinore School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
One-time occurrence did not constitute change in policy by employer. more or view all topics or full text.
121907705/23/88
0646E Lake Elsinore School District * * * OVERRULED by State of California (Department of Agriculture) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1473-S
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
District had no duty to provide the exclusive representative of certificated unit notice and an opportunity to negotiate possible effects of decision to reduce hours of members of the classified unit (instructional aides funded through the School Improvement Program ("SIP")). SIP aides were there to provide individualized instruction to students, not to function as personal assistants to teachers. Any diminishing of teachers' preparation time as result of reduction of aide time was, at best, a fortuitous side effect of misuse of the program. Increase in prep time may have resulted from factors other than decrease in aide time. Reduction in SIP aide time would only have an indirect and speculative impact on teachers workday. more or view all topics or full text.
121901212/18/87
0632E Riverside Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Even if contract breach in alleged failure to hold grievance meeting, no evidence of generalized effect or continuing impact; failure to hold level 1 grievance meeting w/o more, does not establish continuing impact or generalized effect; failure to provide evidence that employer deviated from policy established by contract. more or view all topics or full text.
111815208/26/87
0628E Woodland Joint Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Restricting access to union president (a) and (b) violation, but not unilateral change in policy where it was not shown that other employees or union officials were denied access. more or view all topics or full text.
111812106/30/87
0629E Trinidad Union Elementary School District/Peninsula Union School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Mere change in identity of dental insurance carrier not a violation; benefits must have significantly changed or will significantly change in level or quality; unilateral change to self-funding of dental benefits through joint powers agreement lawful where no evidence of change in benefits or of lessened reliability. more or view all topics or full text.
111813107/08/87
0552E Modesto City Schools and High School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Action may be a policy changed even if it affected only one person for a limited period of time. more or view all topics or full text.
101702912/20/85
2491M City of Montebello
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
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.
413006/30/16
1221H Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Although the University's decision to reduce staffing in the Superblock was outside of the scope of representation, the University had an obligation to meet and negotiate over all reasonably foreseeable effects thereof; pp. 6-7. Change in hours is a reasonably foreseeable, and therefore negotiable, effect of staffing change; p. 8. Reduction in hours for non-transferred personnel was not reasonably foreseeable effect of transfers despite coincidence of timing; pp. 8-9. more or view all topics or full text.
212816109/26/97
0481E Eureka City School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
To prove unilateral transfer of work, charging party must prove that unit employees ceased to perform work which they had previously performed or that nonunit employees began to perform duties previously performed exclusively by unit employees, therefore, where duties traditionally overlapped, no unlawful transfer of work merely by increasing quantity performed by nonunit employees and decreasing quantity performed by unit employees. more or view all topics or full text.
91606001/15/85
0373Eb Mt. Diablo Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
As counselor caseload negotiable, employer violated its duty to negotiate in good faith when it unilaterally increased the caseload of counselors; p. 24. Employer's unilateral increase of workload of librarians breached its duty to negotiate in good faith. Employer ordered to restore status quo and negotiate with association; p. 19. more or view all topics or full text.
81514208/15/84
0373E Mt. Diablo Unified School District  * * * REVERSED IN PART BY Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Test for determining negotiability of proposals regarding impact of layoff is whether, at the time the request to negotiate is made, the decision to lay off would have a reasonably foreseeable adverse impact on employees' working conditions and whether the proposal is intended to address employee concerns generated by that anticipated impact; p. 51. more or view all topics or full text.
81501712/30/83
0367E Oakland Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
A violation will be considered de minimis or technical only where it is promptly rescinded and without effect on employees. Unilateral adoption of calendar which changed holiday not de minimis; p. 37. No violation found in unilateral adoption of calendar where found that employer only intended to adopt student calendar and not employee calendar; p. 37. more or view all topics or full text.
81500812/16/83
0359H Regents of the University of California * * * VACATED by Cole Letter of October 29, 1986 * * *
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Discussions which follow policy change, where no recision or abeyance of change does not mitigate unilateral change violation. Vacated by Cole letter of 10/29/86. more or view all topics or full text.
71429311/23/83
0347E Modesto City Schools
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Employers insistence on consecutive evaluation for teachers considered substandard is policy of generalized application and continuing effect. more or view all topics or full text.
71425909/27/83
0219E Solano County Community College District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Decision and effects of decision to transfer work from classified to certificated unit is negotiable because it impacts on wages and hours associated with the transferred-out work, diminishes unit work, and weakens collective strength of employees in the unit; pp. 8-9. more or view all topics or full text.
61315406/30/82
0209E Rialto Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Board applies Anaheim test to determine that the unilateral transfer of work from attendance counselors (certificated) to persons in classified unit violates EERA section 3543.5(c) and, concurrently 3543.5(a) and (b). Ultimate impact is loss of work to the unit; pp. 2-9. more or view all topics or full text.
61311304/30/82
0206E Moreno Valley Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Elimination of 5 minutes from the preparation period was unlawful despite no specific evidence of impact. Impact on hours is apparent since teachers must accomplish the remainder of preparation outside regular hours. That the change was a small one may be a sensible position to take at negotiations table, but is no basis for exempting employer from obligation to bargain; pp. 9-10. (Overruled - see Imperial - PERB #825.) A single administrative error, immediately retracted by the District upon discovery, but which resulted in some teachers working noon-time duty on one day, does not demonstrate a breach of bargaining obliga- tion. Hearing officer's characterization of conduct as de minimus, inappropriate; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text.
61310704/30/82
1003E Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Contractual breach is actionable if it has a "generalized effect or continuing impact" upon the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members. (Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196.) In this case, district's decision affected at least four teachers by depriving them from obtaining additional educational supplies with the potential to affect more in the ensuing years; p. 10, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
172411606/24/93
0918E Los Angeles Unified School District (Association of Public School Supervisory Employees)
602.5000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Impact and Extent
Employer's failure to reschedule one meeting is insufficient to show a policy change by the employer that had a generalized effect or continuing impact upon the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text.
162301601/07/92