All notes for Subtopic 603.01000 – In General

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate

603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
An employer’s duty to bargain in good faith requires that it provide the exclusive representative with notice and an opportunity to negotiate in good faith over matters within the scope of representation. Consistent with the principle of exclusivity, an employer may not communicate directly with employees to undermine or derogate the representative’s exclusive authority to represent unit members. [Citations.] A charging party may demonstrate that an employer has unlawfully bypassed the exclusive representative by showing that the employer dealt directly with its employees to create a new policy of general application, or to obtain a waiver or modification of existing policies applicable to those employees. [Citations.] (p. 22.) more or view all topics or full text.
2648M City of Arcadia
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
PERB found the employer undermined the Association’s selection of representatives when it invited a bargaining unit member to a negotiations kickoff and gave her information about negotiations to distribute to the Association’s members, where the Association had not designated the employee to bargain on its behalf, the kickoff was a meeting reserved for the leaders of the City’s unions, and the City used the meeting to discuss its goals and announce ground rules for negotiations. PERB found this conduct elevated the bargaining unit member at the expense of the Association’s designated representatives, thereby indicating the employer’s bad faith. more or view all topics or full text.
06/12/19
2143M Omnitrans
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
Employer illegally bypassed the union when it conducted a Focus Group with bargaining unit employees for the purpose of developing changes to shift bid procedures, surveying bargaining unit employees on their preferences for proposed changes to bidding procedures, and making recommendations to management regarding changes to bid procedures. The ALJ properly distinguished prior PERB case law that found there was no violation where the employer and union specifically negotiated an agreement that bargaining would be held if the employer intended to make any changes based on recommendations from the working group. The management rights clause found in the MOU between the parties did not clearly and unmistakably waive the union’s right to bargain work assignment bidding procedures. Employer illegally bypassed the union when it conducted a Focus Group with bargaining unit employees for the purpose of developing changes to shift bid procedures, surveying bargaining unit employees on their preferences for proposed changes to bidding procedures, and making recommendations to management regarding changes to bid procedures. more or view all topics or full text.
3417111/18/10
2103M City of San Diego (Office of the City Attorney) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
Employer illegally bypassed the union when it created and implemented procedures for employees to rescind service credit purchases made pursuant to the MOU between the parties, and solicited employees directly to rescind the transactions. Employer press release and website posting soliciting employees to rescind service credit purchases were not protected employer communications, as the statements went beyond merely informing employees of existing facts, views, arguments or opinions. Employer speech that is used as a means of violating the Act, or that evidences an attempt to bypass the exclusive representative is not entitled to protection. more or view all topics or full text.
346303/26/10
2078S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
Governor’s letter to State employees listing proposals to close State budget deficit did not constitute direct dealing, even though some of the proposals concerned matters within the scope of representation, because letter did not: (1) ask State employees to bargain over or accept the proposals; (2) threaten State employees with force or reprisal or promise them a benefit; or (3) undermine the exclusive representative in the eyes of bargaining unit members as the letter stated the Governor would work with union leaders to achieve the necessary results. more or view all topics or full text.
341111/24/09
1942C Fresno County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
The elements for bypass under the Trial Court Act are the same as those enunciated in County of Fresno (2004) PERB Decision No. 1731-M, which dealt with a charge of bypass under the MMBA, because the statutory sections on which the bypass charge is based under the Trial Court Act are substantially the same as those in the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text.
323801/31/08
1871H Trustees of the California State University
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
Under the free speech provision in HEERA sec. 3571.3, employers are allowed to communicate directly with bargaining unit members as long as the communication does not contain a “threat of reprisal, force, or promise of benefit.” The two emails from CSU management to every Chief of Police in the CSU system did not contain a “threat of reprisal, force, or promise of benefit.” more or view all topics or full text.
313512/28/06
1725E Hilmar Unified School District
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
Once the District reaches a preliminary agreement about the health benefit plans, it may take preliminary steps to implement the plans. Such conduct does not constitute a bypass of the Association by communication with individual unit members more or view all topics or full text.
293512/15/04
1504E Clovis Unified School District
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
An employer may not communicate directly with employees to undermine or derogate the representative’s exclusive authority to represent unit members. Similarly, the employer violated the duty to bargain when it bypasses the exclusive representative to negotiate directly with employees over matters within the scope of representation. In the face of CSEA’s expressed opposition to the elimination of Social Security benefits, the District’s failure to notify CSEA of the election and the decision to implement the results constitute interference with CSEA’s right to represent unit employees in violation of EERA section 3543.5(b). more or view all topics or full text.
271512/18/02
1286E Oak Park Unified School District
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
No EERA violation when District distributed flyers to bargaining unit employees which stated that "the District started this process based upon the principles of Interest Based Bargaining" and that the District's flyer is "the most acurate characterization of [the Association's] actions," because PERB generally permits employers to communicate directly with employees, so long as the communication contains neither threat of reprisal or force, nor promise of benefit. During negotiations, an employer is obligated to present factually accurate information and may not engage in conduct to derogate the exclusive representative's authority; p. 4, warning letter; citations. more or view all topics or full text.
222916109/24/98
1092E Marin Community College District
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
Evidence surrounding the step placement of the former managers at issue here supports the District's argument that no unlawful bypass of the Union occurred; p. 88, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
192607003/21/95
0560E Alhambra City and High School District
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
Accurate commnication to employees concerning negotiations, where there is no evidence of threat or coercion, nor of intent to bypass or undermine union, is lawful. more or view all topics or full text.
101704601/08/86
2485E Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
Legislative preference for collective bargaining through exclusive representation generally prohibits employer from presenting its bargaining proposals to employees instead of to their designated representatives. By enacting EERA section 3549.1, the Legislature intended that negotiations would be attended only by the parties’ representatives, absent an agreement or established practice to the contrary. more or view all topics or full text.
412306/30/16
0927S State of California (Governor Pete Wilson) (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges; Professional Engineers in California Government; California Association of Professional Scientists)
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
Board summarily affirms Board agent's dismissal of Association's charge that Governor of State of California violated section 3516.5, and 3519(b) and (c) of Dills by failing to provide notice and opportunity to bargain on an initiative before proposing it to the Attorney General's office and the people of the State. more or view all topics or full text.
162306104/13/92
0928S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39)
603.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP; In General
Board summarily affirms Board agent's dismissal of Association's charge that DPA violated section 3516.5, and 3519(a), (b), and (c) of Dills by failing to provide notice and opportunity to bargain on an initiative before proposing it to the Attorney General's office and the people of the State. more or view all topics or full text.
162306304/20/92