All notes for Subtopic 602.05000 – New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1169H |
Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
To determine whether a unilateral change has occurred, the charging party must establish that the employer altered the status quo by departing from the terms of the parties' contract or the established past practice; the status quo can encompass change as a normal part of the pattern of conduct between an employer and a union; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. |
20 | 27138 | 09/12/96 |
| 1078E |
San Jacinto Unified School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
Change in work hours of maintenance employees assigned to work football games resulted in a change of hours as some employees who worked the District's new schedule lost 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. more or view all topics or full text. |
19 | 26036 | 12/22/94 |
| 2895M |
Palomar Health
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
The Board found the employer changed the status quo when it sought an order from the superior court to deny union representatives access to picket, parade, march, stand, sit, walk, or otherwise be present in areas inside or outside of the employer’s facilities, other than the employee parking lot. The record established a unilateral change as both a change in established past practice and a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. In the past the unions regularly engaged in protected conduct in the very areas the employer now insisted such activities were disallowed. This past practice was sufficiently “regular and consistent” (or alternately “historic and accepted”) to constitute an established practice. (See Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 13; Pittsburg Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2833, p. 12.) Moreover, the employer also created a new policy or applied or enforced policy in a new way when it for the first time sought to block the Unions from non-patient areas. (pp. 37-41.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 154 | 03/15/24 |
| 2966E |
Pomona Unified School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
Deviation from contractual terms has a “generalized effect or continuing impact” if either: (1) the deviation changes a policy or employment term applicable to future situations; or (2) the respondent acts unilaterally based upon an incorrect legal interpretation or insistence on a non-existent legal right that could be relevant to future disputes. (Bellflower Unified School District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2796, pp. 15-16.) In contrast, “there is no cognizable unilateral change” when a contract breach is “a one-time mistake that has no likelihood of prospectively impacting rights or obligations.” (Id. at p. 19.) (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
50 | 3 | 05/27/25 |
| 2579M |
County of Monterey
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
Absent a clear and unmistakable waiver of the union’s right to bargain, an employer may not unilaterally add new terms to an existing collective bargaining agreement or adopt or enforce new rules of conduct where previously none had existed. This prohibition extends to the enforcement of existing rules. An employer’s more stringent enforcement of an existing policy constitutes a different term or condition of employment for which notice and opportunity to bargain is necessary. (Venture Packaging (1989) 294 NLRB 544, 550; Fry Foods, Inc., supra, 241 NLRB 76, 93; Master Slack (1977) 230 NLRB 1054, 1055-1056.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 33 | 07/20/18 |
| 2658M |
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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 |
| 2611M |
County of Orange
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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. |
43 | 101 | 12/19/18 |
| 2092E |
Desert Sands Unified School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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. |
34 | 39 | 02/01/10 |
| 1534E |
Colton Joint Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Culver City Employees Association v. City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M, where the Board held that a contractual waiver expires with the contract unless the parties have clearly and unmistakably agreed that it continues past the contract expiration. * * *
No unilateral change where employer actions are consistent with a previously unenforced provision of the collective bargaining agreement. more or view all topics or full text. |
27 | 94 | 06/23/03 |
| 1452E |
Lodi Unified School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
The fact that the District, due to an administrative error, mistakenly failed to enforce its right to pay off-track substituting food service workers a lower wage for approximately nine years does not subsequently preclude it from doing so in the present; proposed decision, p. 19. more or view all topics or full text. |
25 | 32096 | 06/28/01 |
| 1392S |
State of California (Department of Corrections)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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. |
24 | 31113 | 06/26/00 |
| 1391S |
State of California (Department of Corrections)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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. |
24 | 31112 | 06/26/00 |
| 1390S |
State of California (Department of Corrections)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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. |
24 | 31111 | 06/26/00 |
| 1455E |
San Diego Community College District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
An employer does not commit an unlawful unilateral change when its actions are consistent with previously unenforced provision of the collective bargaining agreement; p. 3. Marysville Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 314 does not apply here, because there were no prior incidents from which AFT could claim a waiver of the unenforced right upon which a unilateral change would be based. There was no unilateral change; the District was instead enforcing the provisions of the CBA, albeit for the first time; p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. |
25 | 32099 | 07/31/01 |
| 1455E |
San Diego Community College District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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 |
| 1259E |
Fall River Joint Unified School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
Where there is no established past practice of a policy or a similar policy, a policy which potentially affects all special education teachers with a specific mandatory transfer plan is found to be an unlawful unilateral change; p. 28. more or view all topics or full text. |
22 | 29082 | 04/08/98 |
| 1149S |
State of California (Department of Corrections) (International Union of Operating Engineers)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
Employer change in past practice from employees eating their meal while working to a half hour unpaid lunch break is not an unlawful unilateral change when the change is consistent with the parties' collective bargaining agreement; p. 4; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. |
20 | 27082 | 04/30/96 |
| 1072H |
Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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 |
| 1072H |
Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
No violation where employer's decision to contract out educational services was consistent with past practice. 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)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
Although the district may have utilized only volunteer teachers in the past to supervise student activities, under Marysville Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 314, the district was not precluded from enforcing the terms of the agreement to assign supervision duties to non-volunteers; 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 |
| 1050E |
Poway Unified School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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 |
| 1033E |
Healdsburg Union Elementary School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
Even if it is shown that teachers had voluntarily supervised students prior to the directive to do so, this does not establish a past practice which requires the teachers to supervise students; p. 5, fn. 2. Where the tone of a directive suggests that it imposes a new policy, the directive is evidence that a new policy is being implemented; p. 5. An agreement specific to teachers and the principal at a different school within the district does not constitute an established district policy; p. 9. The supervision schedule of first and second grade teachers who are on an entirely different schedule is not comparable to the kindergarten setting, and thus does not establish a past practice for the kindergarten; pp. 9-10. setting, and thus does not establish a past practice for the kindergarten; pp. 9-10. more or view all topics or full text. |
18 | 25030 | 01/06/94 |
| 0883E |
Lodi Unified School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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 |
| 0876E |
Glendora Unified School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
Association fails to establish as one of its prima facie elements of a unilateral change, that District's decision to grant a temporary release for one employee constituted a change in policy. While an employer's established policy may be embodied in the terms of the collective bargaining agreement itself, where the contract is silent or ambiguous as to such a policy, that policy must be ascertained by examining past practice or bargaining history; pp. 10-11. The clear and unambiguous language of the contract establishes that it is the policy of the District to grant temporary absences for non-teaching employees provided the employee obtain prior approval from the site administrator. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go beyond that language to ascertain a contrary interpretation in the absence of supporting factual allegations by the Association; p. 11. absence of supporting factual allegations by the Association; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text. |
15 | 22082 | 05/16/91 |
| 0806H |
Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
Failure to state prima facie case where contract language clear on its face, thus making extrinsic evidence of past practice irrelevant; p. 2, warning letter; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. |
14 | 21100 | 05/07/90 |
| 0789E |
Beverly Hills Unified School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
Contracting out of former duties of laid off unit member unlawful since it constituted unilateral change in "quantity and kind" of subcontracting; pp. 15-17. Board declines to extend Eureka analysis (transfer of work) to subcontracting, because Oakland analysis strikes proper balance between employer flexibility and prevention of severe changes having a significant effect on the unit; p. 17. more or view all topics or full text. |
14 | 21042 | 01/19/90 |
| 0646E |
Lake Elsinore School District * * * OVERRULED by State of California (Department of Agriculture) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1473-S
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by State of California (Department of Agriculture) (2002) PERB Decision No. 1473-S. * * *
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. |
12 | 19012 | 12/18/87 |
| 1221H |
Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore) * * * OVERRULED IN PART BY The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *
Although the University's decision to reduce staffing in the Superblock was outside of the scope of representation, the University had an obligation to meet and negotiate over all reasonably foreseeable effects thereof; pp. 6-7. 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. |
21 | 28161 | 09/26/97 |
| 0347E |
Modesto City Schools
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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. |
7 | 14259 | 09/27/83 |
| 0206E |
Moreno Valley Unified School District
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
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. |
6 | 13107 | 04/30/82 |
| 0995S |
State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California State Employees Association)
602.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); New Policy or Application or Enforcement of Existing Policy in New Way
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M, where the Board held that waiver by contract is an affirmative defense that must be plead and proved by the party asserting it. A charging party is not required to disprove or refute waiver by contract as part of its prima facie case in a unilateral change case. * * *
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 |