All notes for Subtopic 604.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2861M | Imperial Irrigation District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General A responding party’s primary defenses to producing relevant information are waiver, privacy, undue burden, or an absolute or qualified privilege. A responding party waives any defenses to disclosure that it fails to raise promptly after receiving a request. Moreover, if an information request requires clarification, is unduly burdensome, or seeks private information, the responding party is not permitted to deny the request outright and must instead offer to bargain in good faith regarding an appropriate accommodation. Here, the District never contested the relevance of IBEW’s requested information. Rather, the District objects to the ALJ’s characterization of its failure to respond as a “total abandonment of its obligation to provide necessary and relevant information to IBEW upon request,” explaining that it was consumed “just managing through COVID” and the various demands created by the pandemic until at least January or February 2021. It offered no other basis for its lack of response. Of the potential defenses available to the District, the only one with possible applicability in these circumstances is undue burden. However, the District waived this defense by failing to affirmatively and timely assert its concerns to IBEW such that the parties could bargain over them. (pp. 46-48.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 163 | 05/08/23 |
| 2861M | Imperial Irrigation District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An exclusive representative is presumptively entitled to information that is necessary and relevant in discharging its representational duties or exercising its right to represent bargaining unit employees regarding terms and conditions of employment within the scope of representation. In this context, the terms “necessary” and “relevant” do not have separate meanings. PERB uses a liberal, discovery-type standard, like that used by the courts, to determine relevance. A party responding to an information request must exercise the same diligence and thoroughness as it would in other business affairs of importance. An unreasonable delay in providing information constitutes as much of a violation as an outright refusal. Here, there is no question that IBEW requested information relevant to representing unit employees regarding terms and conditions of employment within the scope of representation. The April 13 RFI requested, among other things, information relating to protective measures the District would take to ensure the integrity of sequestration, the number of positions and employees that would be sequestering at each site, and lodging and food arrangements for sequestered employees. As issues concerning health and safety, they are within the scope of representation and therefore presumptively relevant. The same is true of IBEW’s April 16 RFI, which requested information relating to a potential involuntary sequestration scenario, and specifically, how the District would handle such circumstances, as well as how it would treat an employee who refused to sequester. As the ALJ pointed out, discipline is within the scope of representation “both as to the criteria for discipline and as to the procedures to be followed.” (County of Monterey (2018) PERB Decision No. 2579-M, pp. 11-12.) (pp. 46-47.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 163 | 05/08/23 |
| 2190M | City of Redding 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Presumptively relevant information includes, but is not limited to, information related to: wages; benefits; discipline; staffing; enrollment projections; names and home addresses of former employees to determine reinstatement or back pay entitlement; rating sheets; personnel files; employees affected by a reduction in work hours; seniority lists; subcontracting information; and investigative information related to issues of a potentially hostile or unsafe work environment. However, if recognized privacy or confidentiality right outweighs the union’s interest, then it is proper to redact sensitive information. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 14 | 06/30/11 |
| 1700H | Regents of the University of California 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer must provide to an exclusive representative, upon request, information that is necessary and relevant to the union’s representational obligations. (See Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143.) Information that pertains to a matter within the scope of representation is presumptively relevant. (State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration and Transportation) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1227-S, p. 5.) In this case the requested information related to existing access policies at UCOP, a matter within the scope of representation and relevant to UPTE's representational obligations. However, several University witnesses credibly testified that no written access policies existed, except for the relevant collective bargaining agreements. The University could not provide information that does not exist. (Id. at p. 13.) (adopting proposed decision at pp. 57-58.) more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 270 | 11/01/04 |
| 2834E | Butte-Glenn Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General It is not a charging party’s burden to prove exactly what further information a respondent would have found by conducting a proper, diligent search. (p. 18, fn. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 68 | 10/07/22 |
| 2834E | Butte-Glenn Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General A responding party cannot rely on CPRA exemptions when responding to an information request arising under a labor relations statute. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 10 (Sacramento); see also County of Tulare (2019) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, pp. 14-15, fn. 9 [party responding to information request under labor relations statute may interpose defense to protect internal collective bargaining strategy but may not assert the broader deliberative process privilege applicable under the CPRA].) While the CPRA provides unions with the same right to public records as any person or organization, the statutes PERB administers confer upon an exclusive representative, as part of its representational rights and duties, a separate, broader right to information. The CPRA may not require an employer to “create a new set of public records,” but a union’s information request “may cover both public records and information that may not be found in any existing record,” meaning that “an employer responding to an RFI may be required to compile information from multiple records, management agents, and other sources, unless it can prove that doing so would be unduly burdensome.” (Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 11.) (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 68 | 10/07/22 |
| 2834E | Butte-Glenn Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General The union did not have to reassert or clarify its RFI after receiving the District’s response, because a union need not do so if it is sufficiently clear that the response did not fully satisfy the request, as it was in this case. Here, the District assessed and answered the union’s RFI as if it arose under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and consequently failed to explore means of obtaining requested information that was not in its central course database. It was sufficiently clear that the District failed to seek information beyond preexisting records and the District unequivocally stated that no more information would be forthcoming. (p. 14.) The Board partially overruled Trustees of the California State University (2004) PERB Decision No. 1732-H, to extent it suggests that an exclusive representative’s failure to reassert or clarify its information request upon receiving a partial response from the employer always bars finding a violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, regardless of whether it was sufficiently clear that the response was incomplete. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 68 | 10/07/22 |
| 2834E | Butte-Glenn Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Once a party receives a request for relevant information, it must either promptly and fully supply the information or timely and adequately explain its reasons for not doing so. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 8 (Sacramento).) The responding party bears the burden of proof as to any defense, limitation, or condition that it asserts. (Ibid.) If the responding party believes that a request is unduly burdensome, seeks confidential information, or is otherwise overbroad, the responding party must affirmatively assert its concerns and offer to bargain over those concerns with the requesting party. (Id. at pp. 12-13; State of California (Department of State Hospitals) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2568-S, pp. 15-16 [assertion that an information request is unduly burdensome must be timely raised so the parties can negotiate over eliminating or reducing the responding party’s burden]; Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 19 (Petaluma) [“Even where a request is arguably ambiguous or overly broad, the employer . . . must seek clarification [or] comply to the extent the request seeks relevant information”].) A responding party must exercise the same diligence and thoroughness as it would in other business affairs of importance, and a charging party need not show that a responding party’s lack of care caused harm. (Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2597, pp. 8-9; Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 19.) Thus, a responding party violates its bargaining duty if it unreasonably delays its response, even if the delay did not prejudice the requesting party. (Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 9; Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 20.) (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 68 | 10/07/22 |
| 2834E | Butte-Glenn Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer must normally provide an exclusive representative with all information that is necessary and relevant to its right to represent bargaining unit employees regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining. (State of California (State Water Resources Control Board) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2830-S, pp. 9-10; City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2698-M, p. 6.) This is a liberal, discovery-type standard akin to the standard California courts use to determine relevance, and, notably, “necessary” and “relevant” are interchangeable terms that do not have separate meanings. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, p. 8.) (p. 9) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 68 | 10/07/22 |
| 2830S | State of California (State Water Resources Control Board) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General In Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 (Contra Costa), the union did not allege that the employer interfered with representational rights by refusing to provide sufficient information about the accusations to allow meaningful representation. (Id. at p. 30.) Rather, its only claim was for failure to meet and confer in good faith based on the employer’s refusal to provide copies of written complaints against two accused employees. (Ibid.) The Board found no right to obtain such complaints at the investigatory interview stage, though it noted that after the investigatory interview stage and in advance of any pre-deprivation hearing pursuant to Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the employer must normally work with the union on any necessary redactions or other privacy accommodations and normally must provide such records. (Contra Costa, supra, pp. 9, 17 & 25.) (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 42 | 08/10/22 |
| 2830S | State of California (State Water Resources Control Board) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General In addition to prohibiting interference with protected rights, the Dills Act also prohibits an employer from failing or refusing to meet and confer in good faith. (Gov, Code, § 3519, subd. (c).) Pursuant to this duty, an employer must normally provide an exclusive representative with “all information that is necessary and relevant to its right to represent bargaining unit employees regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining.” (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2698-M, p. 6.) Because discipline is a mandatory subject of bargaining, information pertaining to actual or potential discipline is presumptively relevant, even if the only contemplated disciplinary forum is extra-contractual. (Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, p. 9.) Thus, while a charging party can allege a state employer violated Dills Act section 3519, subdivisions (a) and (b) by denying a request for sufficient information to allow meaningful representation at an investigatory interview, a charging party can independently allege the employer violated its duty to meet and confer in good faith. (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 42 | 08/10/22 |
| 2698M | City and County of San Francisco 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General The Board rejected the employer’s argument that it was absolved of any duty to meet and confer with the union over redactions in an investigation report concerning a bargaining unit employee because the union never made such a request. Following the union’s original request for information and receipt of a heavily-redacted investigation report, the union next attempted to obtain clarification regarding the redactions. After the employer responded in a conclusory manner, the union made two subsequent requests for a full, unredacted copy of the report. Almost three months later, the employer provided a report with fewer redactions. In all instances the employer solely determined what information to redact, thereby “converting the applicable procedure from a two-way negotiation to a unilateral decision.” [Citation.] Although these follow-up efforts clarified the dispute, they were not a necessary element to proving the employer’s violation; a union has no duty to request to meet and confer if an employer has unilaterally determined what information to redact and presented its decision as a fait accompli rather than as a proposal. (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 143 | 02/24/20 |
| 2698M | City and County of San Francisco 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Although neither MMBA section 3503 nor section 3506 explicitly contains a meet and confer obligation, the duty to meet and confer under MMBA section 3505 extends to requests for information during the contractual grievance process. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 143 | 02/24/20 |
| 2698M | City and County of San Francisco 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General While the MMBA does not expressly provide for an exclusive representative’s right to information, the Board has repeatedly recognized that an exclusive representative’s statutory right to represent employees carries with it ancillary rights, including the right to obtain necessary and relevant information and to bargain with the employer over any alleged privacy concerns. Conversely, the MMBA prohibits employers from interfering with bargaining unit employees’ right to be represented by their exclusive representative, which by extension precludes interference with an exclusive representative’s right to necessary and relevant information. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 143 | 02/24/20 |
| 2698M | City and County of San Francisco 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General When a union requests information relevant to a potential disciplinary grievance, the employer must raise any privacy concerns in a timely fashion so the parties can negotiate over accommodating those concerns before the union’s time to file a grievance has expired. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 143 | 02/24/20 |
| 2698M | City and County of San Francisco 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer’s duty to provide information abides even where third party privacy rights are concerned, because “a union’s unique representational functions gives it a right to arguably private information.” [Citation.] When a union seeks information that implicates “significant privacy rights of third parties,” the employer may not simply refuse to provide the information but must instead “meet and negotiate in good faith to accommodate all legitimate competing interests.” [Citation.] (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 143 | 02/24/20 |
| 2698M | City and County of San Francisco 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Under the MMBA and other statutes that PERB administers, an exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is necessary and relevant to its right to represent bargaining unit employees regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining. The terms “necessary” and “relevant” are interchangeable; thus, a charging party can meet its burden by showing its request meets one prerequisite or the other. Information pertaining to mandatory subjects of bargaining is presumed relevant, and the employer must provide such information unless it can show that the information is plainly irrelevant or provide adequate reasons why it cannot supply the information. PERB uses a liberal, discovery-type standard to determine relevance. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 143 | 02/24/20 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Defenses to disclosure under the California Public Records Act, Gov. Code sec. 6250 et seq. (CPRA), cannot be imported into labor law, because a union has a greater right to information than members of the general public. (Sacramento City Unified School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2597, pp. 10-11.) Thus, while the CPRA prevents members of the public from obtaining a public entity’s internal deliberative records pertaining to certain of its obligations under California labor law (CPRA, Gov. Code sec. 6254(p)), when a union requests relevant information from an employer, the employer benefits only from the more limited privilege that protects both unions and employers from being forced to reveal to the other party their internal collective bargaining strategies or tactics. (Compare Colton Joint Unified School District/Rialto Unified School District/San Bernardino City Unified School District (1981) PERB Order No. Ad-113 [adopting the privilege protecting internal discussions regarding strategy for collective bargaining, as set forth in Berbiglia, Inc. (1977) 233 NLRB 1476, 1495] with Trustees of the California State University (2004) PERB Decision No. 1591-H, pp. 2-3 [the deliberative process privilege is not a valid defense to a union’s information request].) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General A union is presumptively entitled to information that is necessary and relevant to the union in exercising its right to represent bargaining unit employees regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining, including but not limited to discipline, retirement benefits, workplace safety, and hostile work environment issues. (Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, pp. 15-16, citing other authorities.) This presumptive entitlement to information includes the right to receive investigatory reports relating to hostile work environment claims impacting employees the union represents, though PERB may order appropriate redactions where needed. (City of Redding (2011) PERB Decision No. 2190-M, adopting proposed decision at pp. 17-18.) A refusal to provide presumptively necessary and relevant information upon request constitutes a per se violation of the duty to meet and confer in good faith, as well as interference with protected rights. (State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs) (2004) PERB Decision No. 1686-S, adopting proposed decision at p. 18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General PERB would likely have found that County’s refusal to provide information during the pendency of a rescission petition to have tainted election conditions, had Union sought to block or overturn an election result. (See, e.g., Children of Promise Preparatory Academy (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-428, adopting administrative determination at pp. 19-22 [failure to provide information taints the neutral conditions required for a fair election, as it tends to prevent the union from properly assisting employees, make the union appear weak, increase employees’ dissatisfaction with the union, and otherwise discourage employees from supporting the union].) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer’s duty of neutrality between internal union factions does not relieve it from continuing to deal in good faith with the bargaining unit’s chosen representatives during the pendency of the internal dispute, and in doing so the employer complies with its duty of neutrality. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 26.) Similarly, a pending rescission petition did not provide a valid ground for the County to deny Union’s information request, as Union’s rights and duties with respect to representing employees continued unchanged during the pendency of a rescission petition. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2652E | Contra Costa Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General A union has a right to sufficient information regarding alleged wrongdoing to enable a union representative to represent an employee in a meaningful manner during an investigatory interview, but the union does not obtain the right to an underlying written complaint until after the initial investigatory interview. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 18 | 06/26/19 |
| 2652E | Contra Costa Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General A union is not required to show that it was harmed by an employer’s failure to use adequate care, diligence, or thoroughness in responding to an information request. Where union requested written student complaints of discrimination against two faculty members in advance of investigatory interviews, it was of no moment that employees were able to guess some aspects of the complaints against them, including the complainants’ identities. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 18 | 06/26/19 |
| 2652E | Contra Costa Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General There is no categorical rule denying a union access to information pertaining to a mandatory subject, even when the parties are not in bargaining and the union intends to use the information to advise or represent an employee in relation to an extra-contractual issue or forum. Because discipline is within the scope of representation, information pertaining to actual or potential discipline is presumptively relevant, even if the only contemplated disciplinary forum is extra-contractual. Information pertaining to actual or potential discipline is presumptively relevant, no matter in what forum the disciplinary matter might be resolved, as union has right to information necessary or relevant to its right to represent bargaining unit employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 18 | 06/26/19 |
| 2652E | Contra Costa Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General When a union is considering whether to exercise its right to represent employees in a meeting or proceeding that may adversely affect employment status, or the union does exercise that right, an employer may not deny the union’s related information request on the basis that the meeting or proceeding is extra-contractual or that the union has no duty of fair representation, as union has right to information necessary or relevant to its right to represent bargaining unit employees. Partially overrules San Bernardino City Unified School District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1270 and Carmichael Recreation & Park District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1953-M, to the extent they suggested a categorical rule denying unions access to information for extra-contractual fora. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 18 | 06/26/19 |
| 2597E | Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Under PERB-administered statutes, an exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is necessary and relevant to discharge its representational duties. (Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2485, p. 17.) The terms “necessary” and “relevant” are interchangeable, and a charging party union meets its burden by showing that it has requested relevant information, without also having to show, separately, that the information is “necessary” to fulfilling the union’s representative function. (Id. at p. 21.) PERB uses a liberal, discovery-type standard, similar to that used by the courts, to determine relevance. (Id. at p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 2597E | Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer violates its duty to bargain in good faith if its delay in providing information is unreasonable under the circumstances, even if the delay causes no prejudice. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 2597E | Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Information pertaining to non-bargaining unit employees is not presumed relevant, and the exclusive representative thus bears the burden of demonstrating that such information is relevant and necessary to its representational duties. A union demonstrates relevance where it has requested information that may help it compare the disciplinary circumstances relevant to a bargaining unit employee, including the allegations and any resulting discipline, with prior circumstances involving non-bargaining unit employees. (p. 9, fn. 6.) Union had right to obtain, evaluate, and introduce evidence that arguably may have supported a disparate treatment argument, even where information pertained to a non-bargaining unit employee (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 2597E | Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General PERB-administered statutes provide unions with more expansive access to information and records beyond that available under the CPRA. A union’s RFI may cover both public records and information that may not be found in any existing record. Thus, an employer responding to an RFI may be required to compile information from multiple records, management agents, and other sources, unless it can prove that doing so would be unduly burdensome. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 2597E | Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer, as part of its duty to fully answer a union’s request or else timely and adequately explain a valid defense to disclosure, may not rely upon a CPRA exemption in place of a defense recognized under PERB precedent. (p. 10.) A party responding to an RFI has additional duties under a collective bargaining statute that go beyond its CPRA duties. For example, if a union’s request as written (or as made orally) would lead to unduly burdensome costs, infringe on legitimate privacy interests, or otherwise pose a need for clarification or discussion, an employer must bargain in good faith with the union and seek to negotiate an appropriate accommodation. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 2597E | Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Even though the CPRA and PERB-administered collective bargaining statutes in certain respects protect overlapping rights and interests, and many unions make dual requests under both statutes, an employer must separately analyze its CPRA obligations and its obligations under the collective bargaining statutes. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 2597E | Sacramento City Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General When a union requests relevant information, the employer must either fully supply the information or timely and adequately explain its reasons for not doing so, and the employer bears the burden of proof as to any defense, limitation, or condition that it asserts. (pp. 8-9) A party answering a RFI must exercise the same diligence and thoroughness as it would “in other business affairs of importance,” and a charging party need not show that it suffered harm or prejudice as a result of a responding party’s lack of care. (Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485 at pp. 19, 24.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 2582M | City of Davis 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Necessary and relevant information includes data relevant to a party’s bargaining positions, such as information to assess an employer’s claims used to justify concessionary proposals. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2558E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Exclusive representative’s failure to cite specific legal authority in support of request for information did not excuse employer’s failure to provide the information. It is not incumbent on the exclusive representative to educate the employer on its legal obligations. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 124 | 03/27/18 |
| 2558E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General A five-month delay in providing information is unreasonable and tantamount to a failure to provide information. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 124 | 03/27/18 |
| 2568S | State of California (Department of State Hospitals) (California Association of Psychiatric Technicians) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty to represent bargaining unit employees. An employer’s failure or refusal to provide such information violates the duty to bargain in good faith unless the employer proves the information is “plainly irrelevant” or raises a valid defense to production of the information. (p. 12) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 3 | 06/12/18 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| A428E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer’s refusal to provide necessary and relevant information is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. Failure to provide contact information is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith because it is fundamental to the expanse of a union’s relationship with the employees. The exclusive representative is entitled to the phone numbers and addresses of all unit employees, and, under the balancing test, this may include employees who request confidentiality. Lack of contact information for all employees through November 21 would deprive the Association of the ability to contact bargaining unit employees by mail or telephone through November 21. The lack of contact information would hamper the Association’s ability to represent the unit and negotiate on its behalf. The Academy’s refusal to provide contact information had the real effect of causing the Association to embark on personal contact with teachers which, according to the Academy, was viewed by several teachers as harassment and caused nine teachers to opt-out of providing contact information. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 23 | 06/29/15 |
| 2438E | Los Angeles Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General A union is not obliged to repeat a request for information when it was sufficiently clear to the District that the partial compliance would not satisfy the request, and when it would be futile to repeat its request. A union’s entitlement to all of the requested information is not diminished by the employer’s production of only a portion of the information, even when that portion covered the majority of the requested information. An unreasonable delay in providing requested information is tantamount to a failure to produce the information at all. The burden on the union of attempting to interview every reassigned teacher in person, or of having to send blanket communications to all bargaining unit members requesting that reassigned teachers contact them, compared with the District’s ease of providing the names and locations of reassigned teachers to the union, indicates that union does not have “equal access to the same information from the same source.” more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 26 | 06/25/15 |
| 2402M | County of Solano 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is necessary and relevant to the discharge of its duty of representation. An employer’s refusal to provide all information that is necessary and relevant to the discharge of exclusive representative’s duty of representation evidences bad faith and violates per se its duty to meet and confer unless the employer can demonstrate adequate reasons why it cannot supply the information. Information that pertains to a mandatory subject of bargaining is presumptively relevant. PERB applies a liberal, discovery-type standard to determine that the requested information is relevant to a matter within the scope of representation. If the information sought is not presumptively relevant, the exclusive representative must demonstrate how the information is relevant to its representational responsibilities such as negotiations or contract administration. An employer need not provide requested information that does not exist. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 78 | 12/16/14 |
| 2298M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer has a duty to provide information, upon request, to a union seeking to meet and confer over matters within the scope of representation, including the implementation and effects of a layoff. This duty obliges an employer to respond promptly to the union’s information request. Union admits that the hospital offered to provide the information as it became available, and thereafter union did not reject this response as insufficient nor demand that the hospital provide the information with greater alacrity or in greater detail. Union’s allegations are insufficient to state a prima facie case of failure to provide requested information. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 137 | 12/20/12 |
| 2246M | City of Santa Monica 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer’s duty to provide, upon request, necessary and relevant information to an exclusive representative derives from the duty to bargain in good faith; the duty to bargain in good faith is only owed between an employee organization and the employer, and does not apply to the relationship between an individual employee and the employer; where employee organization withdrew as a charging party to the charge, individual employee lacked standing to pursue an allegation that an employer engaged in bad faith bargaining by failing to comply with an information request. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 149 | 04/06/12 |
| 2303E | Santa Monica Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General List of part-time faculty who did not have a retirement election form on file was necessary and relevant to union’s representation of bargaining unit employees with regard to retirement benefits for current employees. Therefore, employer breached duty to bargain in good faith when it refused to provide the information. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 152 | 12/21/12 |
| 2288M | City of Pinole 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Charge failed to allege facts showing that the employer either ignored or responded with deliberately misleading information to any specific request for information. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 90 | 10/15/12 |
| 2167M | Antelope Valley Hospital District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Individual employee lacks standing to allege that employer violated the MMBA by failing to provide him with requested information. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 47 | 02/25/11 |
| 2151H | Trustees of the California State University 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Where charging party was aware that the employer held back information at least 18 months prior to filing amended charge, the allegation of failure to provide requested information was untimely. PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to “any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge.” The limitations period for new allegations in an amended charge is based on the filing date of the amended charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 14 | 12/14/10 |
| 2101H | Regents of the University of California (Davis) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of representation. PERB uses a liberal standard, similar to a discovery-type standard, to determine the relevance of requested information. If the relevance of the requested information is rebutted by the employer, the exclusive representative must establish how the information is relevant to its representational responsibilities such as negotiations or contract administration. In defining the parameters of “necessary and relevant information” the Board has ruled that if the requested information pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining, it is presumptively relevant. Absent a valid defense, the failure to provide such information is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. On the other hand, the Board has ruled that information not within scope is not presumptively relevant. In such cases, absent the presumption, the burden falls on the charging party to demonstrate the information sought is relevant and necessary to its representational responsibilities. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 55 | 03/01/10 |
| 2101H | Regents of the University of California (Davis) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer is not obligated to provide requested information when the parties have equal access to the same information from the same source. In such cases, the responding party must tell the requesting party the location of the information. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 55 | 03/01/10 |
| 2112I | Los Angeles Superior Court 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General No violation where employer complied with union’s request for information and the union does not allege that it reasserted its request or otherwise communicated its dissatisfaction with the employer’s response. No violation where the union requested the employer provide information related to the basis for the elimination of regular assignments. Although the charge made reference to a comprehensive study by the employer to determine staffing needs, the charge does not include facts to establish such a study was completed or that the employer was in fact in possession of any relevant “written documents, reports, assignment data or analysis.” The employer need not comply with an information request if the requested information does not exist. Moreover, the employer is not obligated to provide details as to the thought process or rationale underlying managerial decisions. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 94 | 06/07/10 |
| 2094H | Regents of the University of California * * * OVERRULED IN PART by amendment to HEERA section 3563.3, Stats. 2011, Ch. 539 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Stats. 2011, ch. 539 (S.B. 857), § 4. * * *Employer did not fail to provide requested information because, while information was presumptively relevant, employer’s contract with software vendor precluded disclosure of the information and vendor refused employer’s request to allow disclosure to employee organization. Nor did employer fail to provide information when it produced its contracts with other software vendors and the employee organization neither reasserted nor clarified its information request in response. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 41 | 02/02/10 |
| 1876H | Trustees of the California State University * * * SUPERSEDED by Trustees of the California State University (2009) PERB Decision No. 1876a-H 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General * * * SUPERSEDED by Trustees of the California State University (2009) PERB Decision No. 1876a-H, where, after the Court of Appeal reversed the Board’s finding that parking location is outside scope of representation because it did not involve the employment relationship, the Board found that under Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177, the employer did not need to bargain its decision to bar certain employees from parking in certain newly built parking structures. * * *An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of representation. PERB uses a liberal standard, similar to a discovery-type standard, to determine relevance of the requested information. In defining the parameters of “necessary and relevant information” the Board has ruled that if the requested information pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining, it is presumptively relevant. Failure to provide such information is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of representation. In defining the parameters of “necessary and relevant information” the Board has ruled that if the requested information pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining, it is presumptively relevant. Information that does not pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining, however, is not presumptively relevant. In such cases, absent the presumption, the burden falls on the charging party to show the information sought is relevant and necessary to the discharge of its duty of representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 40 | 12/29/06 |
| 2013S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Charge failed to state prima facie case of refusal to provide information because it alleged no admissible facts showing that charging party reasserted or clarified its information request after it received employer’s response. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 57 | 03/13/09 |
| 1988M | City of Burbank 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is necessary and relevant to the discharge of its duty to represent a bargaining unit member in a contractual disciplinary arbitration proceeding. Employer violated MMBA section 3505 by failing to promptly provide information requested by the employee organization that was relevant to an employee’s pending arbitration challenging his discipline for violation of the employer’s attendance policy. All of the requested information was presumptively relevant because it related to either the use of sick or FMLA leave by the employee or by other members of the bargaining unit. The employer failed to establish an affirmative defense to production of the information. The employer also failed to provide the information in a timely manner because it produced some of the information almost three months after the initial request and did not produce the rest until ordered to do so by the arbitrator during the hearing. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 11 | 11/25/08 |
| 1915M | County of Sierra 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of representation. PERB uses a liberal standard, similar to a discovery-type standard, to determine relevance of the requested information. The failure to provide such information is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. After a party partially complies with a request for information and seeks clarification regarding the balance of the request, the burden shifts to the requesting party to clarify and/or identify the information requested. When the requesting party fails to make such a response, the responding party is under no further duty to provide information. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 119 | 06/27/07 |
| 1906M | Town of Paradise 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer must provide information that is relevant and necessary to effectively administer a collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the town violated its duty to bargain in good faith under the MMBA by failing to provide the union with requested information on the town’s on-call policy, where the on-call policy was an issue at the bargaining table. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 108 | 05/24/07 |
| 1891M | City of Los Altos 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General The union was entitled to information that was necessary and relevant to discharging its duty to represent unit employees, not to all information that could conceivably aid the union in its representation duties. PERB has held that there is no duty to provide information absent a request, thus the Union’s concession that it had no pending request for identified information was pivotal, because without a request, Local 350 had no right to the disciplinary information which they argued they were entitled to as a matter of course. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 74 | 03/14/07 |
| 1849M | County of Santa Cruz 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Charging party failed to state a prima facie case of a unilateral change because County did not make unilateral change when it provided the information requested by the Association in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 151 | 08/16/06 |
| 1778E | Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General The District provided statement of purpose at beginning of interview that the District was seeking information on the process for the collecting and accounting of associated student body funds. Absent any evidence that clarification was sought by union, or that information was incomplete, allegation that District failed to provide requested information does not state prima facie case; pp. 4-5. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 167 | 10/06/05 |
| 1777E | King City Joint Union High School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General The Board found that the District did not fail to respond to the Association’s information requests because the Association did not express dissatisfaction with the District’s responses to its information requests nor did the Association clearly communicate its disagreement with the District sufficiently to require a more detailed response. Other alleged failures to respond were not supported by the evidence. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 164 | 09/14/05 |
| 1732H | Trustees of the California State University 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART BY Butte-Glenn Community College District (2022) PERB Decision 2834, where the Board held an exclusive representative need not reassert or clarify its information request upon receiving a partial response from the employer where it is sufficiently clear that the response did not fully satisfy the request.* * * No obligation by employer to provide requested information where employer partially complies and employee organization never reasserts or clarifies request. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 48 | 12/27/04 |
| 1704M | Golden Empire Transit District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General The District violated the MMBA by refusing to provide unit employees’ addresses and phone numbers. Local 517 is entitled to all information which is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of fair representation. Failure to provide this information is a “per se” violation of the duty to bargain in good faith because it is “fundamental to the expanse of a union’s relationship with the employees.” The Board dismissed Local 517’s allegation that the District refused to provide information to Local 517 regarding pay rates since the District had actually provided this information. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 7 | 11/08/04 |
| 1711S | State of California, (Department of Consumer Affairs) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Information requests pertaining to non-bargaining unit employees are not presumed relevant. An exclusive representative bears the burden of demonstrating the "probable or potential relevance" of the requested information to its representation of bargaining unit employees; p. 24. Once the employer indicated that it did not believe the information was relevant for the union's representational purposes, the union had an obligation to clarify its request and explain how the information was necessary and relevant to its duty to represent bargaining unit employees; p. 25. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 15 | 11/23/04 |
| 1600M | County of San Joaquin 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Local 790’s allegation on appeal that the charge incorporated by reference the mediator’s findings regarding failure to provide information is ambiguous. If it refers to “changed conditions” or “retaliation” allegations in the charge, then this allegation is dismissed under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), which requires a charge to contain a clear and concise statement of the facts. Otherwise, Local 790 appears to raise a new issue on appeal and under PERB Regulation 32635(b) has not provided good cause to present new allegations on appeal more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 86 | 02/24/04 |
| 1686S | State of California (Department of Veterans Affairs) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Defenses under the Public Records Act standing alone do not necessarily apply to requests for information. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 250 | 09/09/04 |
| 1597H | Trustees of the California State University 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Where compliance with an information request involves substantial costs, parties must bargain over what the costs would be and who would bear them. In this case, union agreed to pay “actual costs” without negotiating any protections and then refused to do so. Under these facts, CSU did not violate HEERA by refusing to provide information without payment. The union’s right of direct access to information must be exercised before the employer complies with a costly union request for information which the union refuses to pay for. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 75 | 02/09/04 |
| 1591H | Trustees of the California State University 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Public Records Act (PRA), Gov. Code section 6254(p), does not create a privilege applicable against otherwise valid information requests under HEERA. Gov. Code section 6260 expressly provides that PRA does not affect rights of parties in other administrative proceedings. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 68 | 01/26/04 |
| 1558S | State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Refusal to provide information does not state prima facie case because check-in/check-out system is not negotiable and the charge does not demonstrate how the requested information is necessary and relevant to union’s right to represent bargaining unit members. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 16 | 11/21/03 |
| 1471E | State Center Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General District violated union's right to bargaining unit members' home telephone numbers by its refusal to provide such information based upon a form limited to informing the District of the employee's desire regarding withholding their home information from the District's printed home directory. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33027 | 12/12/01 |
| 1420S | State of California (Department of General Services) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General No obligation under the Dills Act that the State provide an individual employee with information requested by employees' exclusive representative. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32039 | 02/26/01 |
| 1388S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An employer cannot simply refuse to provide information or ignore a request. Here the Department failed to provide the requested material in a timely manner. Board found as unpersuasive the Department's defense that such information packages had not been completed by the reorganization's implementation date, and that it gave the Association the requested material as soon as it was developed. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31107 | 05/25/00 |
| 1478H | Regents of the University of California 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General While an exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of representation, the duty to provide information does not require the university to accept the information as evidence in a contractual grievance proceeding. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33048 | 03/12/02 |
| 1340E | Ventura County Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General EERA section 3543.5(c) imposes on the public school employer the duty to meet and confer in good faith with an exclusive representative. The employer's duty to furnish the exclusive representative with information stems from this underlying statutory duty to bargain. (Cowles Communications, Inc. (1968) 172 NLRB 1909 [69 LRRM 1100]; Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143 (Stockton).) The duty arises when the exclusive representative makes a good faith request for information relevant and necessary to its representational duties. (Stockton; see also, State of California (Department of Transportation) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1227-S (Transportation); Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834 (Chula Vista); NLRB v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. (1954) 210 F.2d 134 [33 LRRM 2435]; Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v. NLRB (1952) 196 F.2d 1012 [30 LRRM 2169].) The Board has recognized several employer defenses for failing to provide relevant information. For example, an employer need not comply with an information request if it shows the request is unduly burdensome or the requested information does not exist. (Stockton; Chula Vista.) No violation will be found if the employer responds and the union never reasserts or clarifies its request. (Oakland USD.) Since information request cases turn on the particular facts involved, each request is analyzed separately. (Chula Vista.) The exclusive representative is entitled to information which is relevant and useful to the union's determination of the merits of a grievance. (Chula Vista at p. 52, citing NLRB v. Acme (1967) 385 U.S. 432, 437-438 [64 LRRM 2069].) Where, the individual employee grievance had been filed well before the Federation's request for the list, the Federation did not establish a need for the list in order to determine the merits of that employee grievance. The Federation's claim that it needed the list to assist "potential grievants" is speculative and falls far short of establishing the necessity and relevancy of the requested information. The showing by the union must be more than a mere concoction of some general theory which explains how the information would be useful to the union in determining if the employer has committed some unknown contract violation. Where the record establishes that individuals were notified in advance that they had been selected to attend an interview, and it also establishes that no employee was denied the opportunity to request and obtain union representation during that interview, the Federation has failed to show that the list was necessary and relevant to its representational obligation to any person who was interviewed or to any specific grievant. There is no obligation for an employer to provide detail regarding the thought process or rationale underlying its managerial decisions. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30147 | 08/03/99 |
| 1314H | Regents of the University of California (Coalition of University Employees) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General University did not fail or refuse to provide necessary and relevant information when it provided the requested information within 10 working days of the Union's request and Union could demonstrate no harm from delay; p. 4, dismissal letter. University did not fail or refuse to provide relevant and necessary information when it required an employee to execute a release before providing employee medical information to the Union; p. 4, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30056 | 02/01/99 |
| 1290S | State of California (Department of Food and Agriculture) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General PERB has held that an employer has an obligation to provide to the exclusive representative all information that is necessary and relevant to collective bargaining and administration of the contract, including grievance processing, citing Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143; p. 2, warning letter. An employer's duty to provide information does not extend to individual employee requests; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29172 | 10/08/98 |
| 1270E | San Bernardino City Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, where the Board held there is no categorical rule barring a request for information related to a noncontractual forum; information relevant to challenging discipline of a bargaining unit member is presumptively relevant. * * *Certain information is presumed to be relevant, but if the employer questions the relevance, the union must give the employer an explanation. Once relevant information is requested, the employer must provide it or adequately set forth the reasons why it is unable to comply. The employer may be excused if compliance would be burdensome, but the burden of proving this defense is on the employer; pp. 69-70, proposed dec. Information immediately pertaining to mandatory subjects of bargaining is presumptively relevant. Other information is not presumed relevant, and the requestor must show the information is relevant and necessary to its representational duties; p. 70; Information related to extra-contractual forum is not presumed relevant and burden is on requestor. The NLRB has held unit members' home addresses are presumptively requestor. The NLRB has held unit members' home addresses are presumptively information. The burden thus shifts to the District to justify its refusal to provide over 400 such addresses in April 1996, when CSEA requested them; p. 78, proposed decision. The employee addresses CSEA requested in April 1996 were relevant information and the District established no defense for its refusal to provide over 400 of the requested addresses; p. 79, proposed decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29113 | 06/22/98 |
| 1262E | Bakersfield City School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Certain information is presumed to be relevant, but if the employer questions the relevance the union must give the employer an explanation; Once relevant information is requested, the employer must provide it or adequately set forth the reasons why it is unable to comply; the employer may be excused if compliance would be burdensome, but the burden of proving this defense is on the employer; pp. 16-17, proposed dec. Unit members' home addresses and phone numbers are presumptively relevant; Id. at p. 19. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29089 | 04/28/98 |
| 1255H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Request for job descriptions of and job requistion forms for non-unit employees suspected of performing bargaining unit work is necessary and relevant to union's representational activities; pp. 42-43, proposed dec. In the absence of justification or excuse, University's two-month delay in providing necessary and relevant information constitutes a violation of University's duty to meet and confer in good faith; pp. 43-44, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29066 | 03/20/98 |
| 1184E | Hacienda La Puente Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Employer's duty to bargain in good faith includes the obligation to provide necessary and relevant information needed by the exclusive representative for the proper performance of its representational duties; p. 12, proposed dec. Employer's duty to furnish information extends beyond contract negotiations and applies to labor-management relations during the term of an agreement; p. 12, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28053 | 02/21/97 |
| 1148H | Regents of the University of California (Dehler) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General The University's obligation to provide information under HEERA does not extend to an individual employee; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27075 | 04/12/96 |
| 1061E | Los Angeles Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General An exclusive representative is entitled to information sufficient to enable it to understand and intelligently discharge its duty to represent bargaining unit members; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25149 | 10/06/94 |
| 1056S | State of California (Cstate Employees Association, Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General A party that has requested information has an obligation to accept possession of such data when offered. Absent such acceptance, it cannot be heard to complain about not having received the requested information; p. 17, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25129 | 09/14/94 |
| 0891H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Providing information in a telephone conversation did not satisfy University's obligation to provide requested information where accuracy of the information provided in the conversation is placed into question by publication of article in campus newspaper which quoted extensively from a University memo; p. 7. While AFSCME might not be entitled to specific copies of internal University memorandum, it was entitled to some definitive source of information other than a mere telephone discussion of the "basic elements" of the memos; pp. 7-8. The fact that various departments were in process of developing individual plans for meeting budget goals does not justify University's failure to provide relevant and readily available information; p. 8. Obligation to provide information is not dependent on when employer information; p. 8. Obligation to provide information is not dependent on when employer more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22117 | 07/03/91 |
| 0864E | Newark Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Employer's refusal to provide necessary and relevant information upon request from association in grievance hearing constituted bad faith bargaining as employer failed to provide reason why it refused to provide this information; p. 18. In refusal to provide information, relevance is determined by liberal discovery-type standard; information is not deemed irrelevant simply because an exclusive representative is able to negotiate a contract or present a grievance without the information; proposed dec., p. 41. Employer's refusal to provide information constituted violation of EERA section 3543.5(c); conduct also denied Association its statutory right to bargain on behalf of unit members and thus violated section 3543.5(b); conduct further denied employee's right to have representation on a contract grievance and thus also violated section 3543.5(a); p. 18. representation on a contract grievance and thus also violated section 3543.5(a); p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22023 | 01/14/91 |
| 0850H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Absent a request an employer is under no obligation to provide information in bargaining where no allegation of misrepresentation or concealment. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21208 | 10/30/90 |
| 0835E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Association of Public School Supervisory Employees) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Employer must provide necessary and relevant information only if it is requested; p. 3. Failure to allege that information was requested is fatal to charge of failure to provide information; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21170 | 08/30/90 |
| 0834E | Chula Vista City School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General General summary of the law regarding refusal to provide information; pp. 50-53. District's failure to respond to request is equivalent to a flat refusal. Unjustifiable delay equals flat refusal. Determination of whether information is relevant is made under "a liberal 'discovery-type standard'." more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21162 | 08/16/90 |
| 0818E | Oakland Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General In light of holding that the matter was nonnegotiable, coupled with fact that the District board's resolution provided for a delay in implementation to allow for discussions with exclusive representatives, short delay in providing a copy of the resolution insufficient to constitute a violation; p. 20. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21129 | 06/21/90 |
| 0790E | Compton Community College District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General District violated 3543.4(c) by failing to respond to union's request for information in a timely manner. Requested information was relevant and necessary to the union's enforcement of the agency fee provision and District did not adequately explain why the information request could not be completed for almost five months. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21051 | 02/06/90 |
| 0613H | Trustees of the California State University (California Faculty Association) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Good summary on scope of duty to provide information. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18051 | 02/09/87 |
| 0540E | Oakland Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Refusal to provide information in timely fashion or to provide adequate salary information where District has no reason to support refusal evinces bad faith bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17009 | 12/12/85 |
| 2490M | County of San Joaquin 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Board affirmed and adopted dismissal of allegation that employer failed to provide necessary and relevant information where record contained no evidence on whether the employer provided the requested information. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 29 | 06/30/16 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General In determining whether a party has unreasonably delayed in responding to a request for presumptively relevant and necessary information, the responding party must exercise the same degree of diligence and thoroughness as it would in other business affairs of importance. Charging party stated a prima facie case that a public school employer had unreasonably delayed providing information by allegedly failing, without explanation, to provide charging party with certain information pertaining to unit members’ wages and benefits for six weeks. Fact that parties were not meeting during the six-week period because of a separate dispute over ground rules to negotiations did not, as a matter of law, excuse public school employer’s failure to provide information or advise employees’ representative that the information was not immediately available, since information was necessary and relevant for evaluating proposals and preparing counterproposals, even in the absence of in-person meetings. In the absence of any contemporaneous explanation by the District for its six-week delay in providing presumptively relevant information, charging party alleged sufficient facts to state a prima facie case that employer unreasonably delayed providing information. Charging party failed to state a prima facie violation of EERA section 3543.5, which makes it unlawful for a public school employer to “[k]nowingly provid[e] an exclusive representative with inaccurate information, whether or not in response to a request for information, regarding the financial resources of the public school employer.” Although the school district provided three different financial scenarios based on different budgetary assumptions, the fact that the information or the manner in which it was presented was confusing or unpersuasive did not either that any difficulty or confusion was deliberate (as alleged in the charge), or that the information was necessarily inaccurate. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 23 | 06/30/16 |
| 1953M | Carmichael Recreation and Park District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652, where the Board held there is no categorical rule barring a request for information related to a noncontractual forum; information relevant to challenging discipline of a bargaining unit member is presumptively relevant. * * *Charging party requested copies of an employee’s medical documentation solely to prepare for a Skelly hearing, an extra-contractual forum. Therefore, the Board found that a union failed to meet its burden of showing the information it sought was relevant and necessary to the union's representational duties. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 69 | 04/17/08 |
| 1755H | Trustees of the California State University (Sonoma) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Charging Party did not provide facts suggesting that the employer's claim that it did not possess the requested documents was untruthful and therefore there is no prima facie case; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 97 | 03/01/05 |
| 0479E | Modesto City Schools and High School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Once exclusive rep. shows need for information, burden of proof shifts to employer to show reason why information should not be revealed; p. 10. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16056 | 01/10/85 |
| 0482E | Modesto City Schools and High School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Request responded to and charge fails to state how response inadequate; charge fails to reflect information relevant and necessary. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16061 | 01/16/85 |
| 0375E | Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Employer has duty to supply information to exclusive representative so long as information requested is both directly related to the union's function as bargaining representative and "reasonably necessary" for the performance of that function; p. 22. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15021 | 01/05/84 |
| 0367E | Oakland Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Where response to single request for information not fully responsive and union never reasserted or clarified request, no failure to provide information was established; p. 27. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15008 | 12/16/83 |
| 0275E | Oakland Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General District did not violate duty to bargain in good faith where District did not deliberately withhold relevant information and District had no duty to provide information in the absence of a request; p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14029 | 12/29/82 |
| 0143E | Stockton Unified School District 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General The exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is necessary and relevant to discharging its duty to represent unit employees. An employer's refusal to provide such information evidences bad faith bargaining unless the employer can supply adequate reasons why it cannot supply the information. Information pertaining immediately to mandatory subjects of bargaining is presumptively relevant. Employer's refusal to provide information is a per se violation. After a good faith demand by the exclusive representative, a refusal by an employer to supply that information is a separate violation which, standing alone, is a refusal to negotiate in good faith unless the employer can provide adequate reasons why it cannot supply the information. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11189 | 11/03/80 |
| 0916S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39) 604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General Board affirms partial dismissal of charge that DPA failed to bargain in good faith by making a last, best and final offer after being informed Board had issued complaint against DPA based on failure to provide information. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23020 | 01/02/92 |