All notes for Subtopic 605.01000 – Outright Refusal to Bargain
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2876M | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain A party cannot satisfy its duty to bargain in good faith merely by meeting and discussing a topic as it explicitly denies any duty to bargain. (City of San Ramon (2018), PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 15 [agreeing to meet for the sake of good labor relations does not satisfy bargaining obligation where employer denies obligation to bargain]; Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313, adopting proposed decision at p. 5 [same].) (p.36.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 66 | 10/17/23 |
| 2879E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain A party engaging in a technical refusal to bargain takes on several risks aside from the risk of work stoppage or other consequences of labor strife. First, as in any case before it, PERB can issue litigation sanctions if any party takes a frivolous position in bad faith. Second, even when there is no cause for litigation sanctions, if an employer pursues an unsuccessful technical refusal over a unit determination, the charging party union may be entitled to reimbursement of its increased costs outside of litigating the technical refusal charge, which may include increased costs for organizing, bargaining, lost dues, or legal costs beyond litigating the charge itself. (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 69 | 10/23/23 |
| 2879E | * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Alliance College-Ready Public Charter Schools 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain While EERA section 3542, subdivision (a)(2) permits a party to obtain appellate review of a unit determination by engaging in a technical refusal to bargain, a party’s right to do so is limited in several respects. As the Board stated in Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology High School (2022) PERB Decision No. 2809, a party engaged in a technical refusal to bargain must rely on evidence already in the administrative record of the unit determination, because the prior representation decision is treated as binding with respect to all issues that were, or could have been, litigated in the representation proceeding. A party may not collaterally attack PERB’s determination using evidence that it could have raised in the unit determination proceeding, nor may it use the technical refusal as an attempt to modify a unit while circumventing PERB’s mandatory unit modification procedure. Because a respondent in a technical refusal case should admit it is refusing to comply with the underlying representation order, PERB can normally grant judgment on the pleadings to resolve a technical refusal to bargain. (pp. 16-17.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 69 | 10/23/23 |
| 2858M | City and County of San Francisco 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain The City’s unlawful interpretation of its Charter caused it to refuse for more than three months to consider, much less bargain about, the union’s retroactive pay proposal, a per se failure to bargain in good faith. (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, pp. 64-65; County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, pp. 24-25.) (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 156 | 04/26/23 |
| 2819E | Cerritos Community College District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Per se violations generally involve conduct that violates statutory rights or procedural bargaining norms. (City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, pp. 34-35.) Unlike the totality of conduct analysis, a per se violation requires no inquiry into the respondent’s subjective intent or finding of bad faith. (Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2015) PERB Decision No. 2418-M, p. 15 (Fresno).) The District’s outright refusal to negotiate over lesser discipline of full-time faculty and paid administrative leave constituted a per se violation of its duty to bargain. (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, pp. 67-70; Fresno, supra, PERB Decision No. 2418-M, p. 15.) (p. 36.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2809E | Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School et al. 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Employers cannot assert changed circumstances as a defense to a refusal to bargain. To the extent an employer alleges that changed circumstances render a unit inappropriate, they cannot simply refuse to bargain – they must instead file a unit modification petition. PERB regulations and long-established precedent provide that a unit modification can only be effectuated by either the mutual agreement of the parties or through the filing of a petition and showing changed circumstances. (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 131 | 02/28/22 |
| 2809E | Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School et al. 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Because a respondent in a technical refusal to bargain case should admit it is refusing to comply with the underlying representation order, PERB normally should expedite judicial review by granting judgment on the pleadings at all levels of PERB, treating the prior representation decision as binding with respect to all issues that were, or could have been litigated in the representation proceeding. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 131 | 02/28/22 |
| 2809E | Alliance Judy Ivie Burton Technology Academy High School et al. 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain While EERA section 3542, subdivision (a)(2) permits a party to obtain appellate review of a unit determination by engaging in a technical refusal to bargain, a party’s right to do so is limited in several respects. A party engaged in a technical refusal to bargain must rely on evidence already in the administrative record of the unit determination, because the prior representation decision is treated as binding with respect to all issues that were, or could have been litigated in the representation proceeding. A party may not collaterally attack PERB’s determination using evidence that it could have raised in the unit determination proceeding, nor may it use the technical refusal as an attempt to modify a unit while circumventing PERB’s mandatory unit modification procedure. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 131 | 02/28/22 |
| 2783H | Regents of the University of California 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain The University’s refusal to bargain over alternatives to discipline or unpaid leave for employees who did not comply with mandatory influenza vaccination policy was a failure to meet and confer in good faith prior to implementation. (pp. 29-30.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 38 | 07/26/21 |
| 2772M | County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * * 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain “[T]he MMBA’s duty to bargain extends to the implementation and effects of a decision that has a foreseeable effect on matters within the scope of representation, even where the decision itself is not negotiable.” A failure or refusal to bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable change is equally as harmful as a failure to bargain over a negotiable change, as it disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations by creating an imbalance in the power between management and employee organizations. While the County was entitled to unilaterally decide to make changes to body worn camera policies and to permit the police review agency to interview an investigator, supervisor, witness, or custodian of records, the refusal to bargain over the effects of those decisions is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. (pp. 44-46.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2745M | County of Sacramento 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 39 | 09/18/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain The employer’s expressed concern that a union’s specific proposal violates the law did not signal an outright refusal to bargain where the evidence shows the employer continued to negotiate over the issue in general. (p. 44.) The employer’s unlawful position that regional bargaining was not required did not evidence bad faith in the parties’ successor MOU negotiations because the employer’s stated position pertained to discussions about the parties’ “current” contract and its response to the union’s notification of anticipated litigation. (p. 45.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain A blanket refusal to bargain is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, including when an employer fails to provide the union with any rationale for rejecting its proposal. (pp. 42-43.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain An outright refusal to bargain over matters within the scope of representation is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. (p. 37.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain The regional committee committed an unfair practice by designating a trial court as its bargaining representative when doing so precluded the employee organization from negotiating over a subject within the scope of representation: wages. (p. 37.) A party cannot unilaterally determine that the existence of alternative negotiable benefits eliminates its obligation to at least consider in good faith other proposals within the scope of representation. Nor may a party insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and thereby refuse to discuss the other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (pp. 36-37.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain A specific delegation of bargaining responsibility may be unlawful if it is found to be inconsistent with the obligation to bargain in good faith. (p. 35.) Although regional committees generally may delegate their bargaining authority under the Court Interpreter Act, requiring a union to individually negotiate the impacts of changes by local trial courts to retirement benefits on a court-by-court basis violates the Act’s purpose because the trial courts lack the statutory authority to change interpreters’ wages. (pp. 35-36.) A regional committee is thus required to meet and confer over the impacts of a trial court’s change to employee pension contributions, and it may not delegate that obligation to the trial court. (p. 36.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2588E | Los Angeles Unified School District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain District’s refusal to negotiate the union’s proposed procedures whereby the District would use its internal e-mail system to transmit communications from the union to its bargaining unit members constitutes a violation of the EERA. (pp. 8-10.) The Board rejected District’s exception that it repeatedly offered to negotiate this matter and the union did not accept the offer because there was no evidence that the union declined the District’s two offers to negotiate. (pp. 9-10.) The facts are not subject to dispute because the parties submitted a stipulated factual record. (p. 2.) Therefore, the stipulated facts constitute a judicial admission that the union responded to the District’s initial offer with proposed procedures and that “the District ultimately declined to negotiate” with the union. Absent contrary evidence, the only conclusion the Board may draw from the stipulation is that the District refused to bargain over the union’s proposal. (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2558E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Employer therefore had duty to bargain with the certified representative because the administrative determination ordering certification was not stayed by the filing of an appeal or of a request for stay of the administrative determination. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 124 | 03/27/18 |
| 2558E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain An employee organization recognized or certified as the exclusive representative enjoys a conclusive presumption of majority support for a one-year period following recognition or certification, and an employer may not refuse to bargain with an exclusive representative during that period of time. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 124 | 03/27/18 |
| 2558E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Outright refusal to negotiate ground rules proposal found where employer did not state its objections to the proposal at the bargaining table; ALJ properly declined to consider objections raised only in employer’s post-hearing brief. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 124 | 03/27/18 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Although Charging Party requested a resumption of negotiations over health benefit contributions following a declaration of impasse and the exhaustion of applicable impasse resolution procedures, it pointed to no ground rules or similar agreement requiring the parties to negotiate this issue separately from the other subjects in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was legally privileged to refuse to resume bargaining. (p. 12.) Although parties may agree to ground rules governing the time and place of their negotiations, including arrangements to discuss specific subjects separately or in a particular order, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others or make continued negotiations conditional upon reaching agreement over a single subject and thereby refuse to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain The Board rejected Charging Party’s exception that, by requesting bargaining over a single issue following impasse, the Charging Party had effectively broken the deadlock and revived the Respondent’s duty to bargain over the single issue, which had already been part of the overall deadlock reached in negotiations for a successor MOU. (pp. 10-11.) The Board found no violation of the duty to bargain because Charging Party’s request for single-issue negotiations did not break the impasse and revive the Respondent’s duty to bargain. Although impasse necessarily entails an overall deadlock in negotiations, it may stem from disagreement over a single subject, if the disagreement is of such importance that the parties’ failure to agree on that one subject causes all negotiations to break down. (pp. 10-11.) The party asserting that an impasse has been broken must point to the changed circumstances that would justify a return to the bargaining table. Mere speculation regarding possible concessions by the other party is insufficient to revive bargaining. There must be substantial evidence that a party is committed to a new bargaining position. Vague and general statements about possible concessions or a request by one party for additional meetings, if unaccompanied by an indication of the areas in which that party foresees future concessions, are insufficient to break an impasse where the other party has clearly announced that its position is final. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Applying precedents decided under other PERB-administered statutes, the Board held that a the Trial Court Act employer need not make a second formal declaration of impasse or re-invoke the impasse resolution procedures contained in its local rules when those same procedures had already been exhausted without resolving the same dispute over a successor MOU. PERB cases decided under EERA and the Dills Act hold that “once the statute’s impasse procedures have been concluded, PERB has no authority to recertify impasse or [to] reinvoke impasse procedures,” which have already failed to resolve the dispute. (p. 11.) Thus, it was unnecessary for the Court to make another formal declaration of impasse or invoke the impasse resolution procedures in the EERR when those same procedures had already been exhausted without resolving the same dispute over a successor MOU. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Where parties tentatively agreed to negotiate “Other Post-Employment Benefits” separate from MOU negotiations and no other evidence was presented as to the importance of that subject or whether the parties’ failure to reach agreement on it contributed in any meaningful way to the breakdown in negotiations, Board declined to disturb ALJ’s finding that negotiations had reached a bona fide impasse as the result of good-faith bargaining. Impasse refers to an overall deadlock in negotiations. An employer may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and then bargain to impasse only as to that subject and impose its proposal, while refusing to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. Although impasse may result from disagreement over a single subject, that subject must be of such critical and overriding importance to the parties that disagreement on that subject alone causes an overall breakdown in negotiations such that further bargaining over any subject would be futile. (pp. 33-35.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2434E | Anaheim Union High School District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain The employer’s refusal to meet with the exclusive representative’s bargaining team so long as it included a team member undergoing disciplinary proceedings was a per se violation of the employer’s duty to negotiate in good faith; EERA gives the parties the right to appoint their own negotiators and forbids either side from dictating who their opposing representatives may be; the determinative issue is whether the presence of the subject representative would create such an atmosphere of ill will as to render good faith bargaining impossible; the proffering of a representative’s voluminous disciplinary record and lengthy disciplinary proceedings is insufficient to meet that bar. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 9 | 06/19/15 |
| 2102S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Employer’s denial of union’s requests to bargain over successor memorandum of understanding following employer’s post-impasse implementation of last, best and final offer (LBFO) did not constitute bad faith bargaining. Employer had no duty to bargain at the time the requests were made because impasse had not been broken by changed circumstances. Union’s bargaining requests did not contain a concession from its earlier bargaining position indicating agreement might be possible. Legislature’s failure to approve economic items of LBFO, Governor’s declaration of fiscal emergency and employer’s withdrawal of implementation of second and third year economic items did not constitute changed circumstances. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 62 | 03/26/10 |
| 2078S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Charge failed to state prima facie case of per se violation because DPA’s failure to make or respond to economic proposals was justified during period when funds available for State employee compensation were uncertain due to an unprecedented State budget deficit. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 11 | 11/24/09 |
| 2055M | Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Employer’s refusal to bargain over implementation of long-term vehicle assignment policy more than one year after its governing board adopted the policy was not unlawful. Union waived its right to bargain by not requesting to meet and confer over the policy or its effects during the five months between the union’s receipt of notice of the policy and the governing board’s adoption of the policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 144 | 08/26/09 |
| 1783M | County of Inyo * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, where the Board held that a union does not circumvent the employer’s negotiator by making presentations to employer’s governing board, provided it does not make new proposals materially differing from those it made at the bargaining table. * * *The Board reversed the dismissal and found the Employer had stated a prima facie case of violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by the United Domestic Workers and directed a complaint to issue. Where union’s negotiator tried to circumvent employer’s negotiator contrary to the ground rules and refused to negotiate. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 8 | 11/07/05 |
| 1758S | State of California (Board of Prison Terms) 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain No outright refusal to bargain shown where State had not responded to one particular proposal in several months, negotiations were ongoing, impasse had not been declared and charging party did not include any facts related to other proposals or the total negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 103 | 03/24/05 |
| 1516S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Per se test, for establishing that a party bargained in bad faith, is appropriate to use for outright refusal to bargain or a unilateral change. Not the case here where the State’s comments to press simply responded to concerns expressed by Assemblyman Cox and the Legislative Counsel over constitutionality of contracting-out provision, and the Department of Finance’s (DOF) May budget revisions were produced without any showing of the DOF’s knowledge of the tentative agreement. In this case, the State’s response to a legislator’s questions that it would “take another look at” the constitutionality of a provision of the MOU does not, by itself, repudiate the tentative agreement. On that basis, this case can be distinguished from Placerville Union School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 69 and Kern High School District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1265 which both involved blatant repudiation of tentative agreements. Nor do the statements “torpedo” the agreement as prohibited by Alhambra City and High School Districts (1986) PERB Decision No. 560. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 52 | 04/07/03 |
| 1067S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges and Professional Engineers in California Government; California State Employees' Association; California Department of Forestry Employees' Association, Local 2881, International Association of Fire Fighters) 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain The Governor does not fail to meet and confer in good faith through the act of submitting a budget to the Legislature prior to meeting and conferring with State employee unions. The submission of a proposed budget is not a matter for negotiations, but is instead the performance of a constitutionally imposed duty; p. 10, proposed dec. The Governor does not fail to meet and confer in good faith by preparing a State budget prior to negotiations with State employee unions. The Governor's initial determination on State employee pay and benefits may be made for budgetary purposes prior to negotiations; p. 11, proposed dec. No per se violation can be found in the Governor's pre-negotiations discussions with members of the Legislature about specific negotiable matters. Evidence of such discussions might under some circumstance, be appropriate to evaluate under the totality of the circumstances; matters. Evidence of such discussions might under some circumstance, be appropriate to evaluate under the totality of the circumstances; more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26010 | 11/09/94 |
| 1030E | San Mateo County Community College District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain The District's failure to discuss in any meaningful way its position to keep the status quo regarding released time constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25027 | 12/28/93 |
| 0823S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges) 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain A delay in making a firm counterproposal on salaries until after final adoption of the state budget is not a per se violation where the Governor's representative, as a part of his bargaining strategy, delays the proposal until he has had an opportunity to review the final budget in good faith. (Writ summarily denied.) more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21135 | 06/29/90 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain 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. To the extent a public school employer insists on a policy of excluding employee observers from negotiations, it was simply following the statutory default rule for negotiations, and not unlawfully refusing to meet and negotiate. pp. 29-34; 34-37. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 23 | 06/30/16 |
| 0507E | Santa Maria Joint Union High School District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain No violation for refusal to bargain decision to reduce hours where parties' contract provides that management retained the right to reduce hours. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16138 | 05/16/85 |
| 0373E | Mt. Diablo Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b and OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b and OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *Violation found where meetings were little more than a forum for communicating an outright refusal to negotiate. Based on the totality of the circumstances, District did not, by meeting with the Association, discharge its duty to negotiate in good faith with the Association concerning effects of its layoff decision; p. 24. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15017 | 12/30/83 |
| 0356H | Regents of the University of California (Statewide University Police Association) 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Employer's adamant position that it will not agree to any other proposal other than uniform fees for all employees come "perilously close to an admission that UC has not approached negotiations over parking fees . . . with the view of reaching agreement if possible . . ." as contemplated within the requirements of good faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14288 | 11/14/83 |
| 0337E | Kern Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * Employer's refusal to negotiate the effects of layoff constitutes a violation of Act; p. 13. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14229 | 08/19/83 |
| 0334E | Mt. San Antonio Community College District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Employer's outright refusal to bargain reorganization plan containing matters within scope of representation is an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14226 | 08/18/83 |
| 0220E | El Monte Union High School District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain District violated EERA section 3543.5(c) and, concurrently (a) and (b) by refusing to bargain with the exclusive representative as a tactical maneuver to challenge the validity of PERB's decision to modify the unit; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13160 | 06/30/82 |
| 0179E | Sierra Joint Community College District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Employer's outright refusal to bargain over community college union's proposal that negotiators receive a one-fifth reduction in workload was failure to negotiate in good faith. There is no need to view this action as part of the totality of conduct to find a violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 5 | 12150 | 11/05/81 |
| 0140E | Redondo Beach City School District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Employer's refusal to bargain on grounds that unit is not appropriate constitutes a failure to negotiate in good faith. Absent evidence of newly discovered or previously unavailable circumstances re-litigation of PERB's unit determination is not warranted. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11181 | 10/14/80 |
| 0105E | San Francisco Community College District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Duty to bargain does not imply a duty to reach an agreement; p. 13. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10127 | 10/12/79 |
| 0104E | Santa Clara Unified School District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain No duty to bargain because Union not exclusive rep.; pp. 22-23. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10124 | 09/26/79 |
| 0100E | Sacramento City Unified School District 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Board held that Association stated a prima facie case of refusal to bargain in good faith where District refused to bargain over emergency regulations regarding personal leaves; pp. 6-8. Board held that regardless of whether injury arose because of refusal to bargain, prima facie case stated; pp. 7-8. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10109 | 08/14/79 |
| 0040E | Sonoma County Office of Education 605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain Employer must negotiate individual salary as long as the relationship between job classifications in the same occupational group is not changed. more or view all topics or full text. | 1 | 588 | 11/23/77 |