All notes for Subtopic 605.01000 – Outright Refusal to Bargain

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2701I * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.1000: 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.
03/16/20
2701I * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.1000: 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.
03/16/20
2701I * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.1000: 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.
03/16/20
2701I * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.1000: 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.
03/16/20
2701I * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.1000: 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.
03/16/20
2588E Los Angeles Unified School District
605.1000: 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.
436310/17/18
2558E Children of Promise Preparatory Academy
605.1000: 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.
4212403/27/18
2558E Children of Promise Preparatory Academy
605.1000: 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.
4212403/27/18
2558E Children of Promise Preparatory Academy
605.1000: 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.
4212403/27/18
2523C El Dorado County Superior Court
605.1000: 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.
4115203/20/17
2523C El Dorado County Superior Court
605.1000: 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.
4115203/20/17
2523C El Dorado County Superior Court
605.1000: 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.
4115203/20/17
2505M City of Roseville
605.1000: 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.
419711/30/16
2434E Anaheim Union High School District
605.1000: 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.
40906/19/15
2102S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
605.1000: 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.
346203/26/10
2078S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
605.1000: 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.
341111/24/09
2055M Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
605.1000: 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.
3314408/26/09
1783M County of Inyo * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M
605.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
The Board reversed the dismissal and found the Employer had stated a prima facie case of violation of the MMBA 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.
30811/07/05
1758S State of California (Board of Prison Terms)
605.1000: 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.
2910303/24/05
1516S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
605.1000: 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.
275204/07/03
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)
605.1000: 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.
192601011/09/94
1030E San Mateo County Community College District
605.1000: 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.
182502712/28/93
0823S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges)
605.1000: 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.
142113506/29/90
2485E Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District
605.1000: 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.
412306/30/16
0507E Santa Maria Joint Union High School District
605.1000: 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.
91613805/16/85
0373E Mt. Diablo Unified School District  * * * REVERSED IN PART BY Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 373b
605.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
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 decision to layoff; p. 24. more or view all topics or full text.
81501712/30/83
0356H Regents of the University of California (Statewide University Police Association)
605.1000: 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.
71428811/14/83
0337E Kern Community College District
605.1000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
Employer's refusal to negotiate the effects of layoff constitutes a violation of Act; p. 13. more or view all topics or full text.
71422908/19/83
0334E Mt. San Antonio Community College District
605.1000: 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.
71422608/18/83
0220E El Monte Union High School District
605.1000: 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.
61316006/30/82
0179E Sierra Joint Community College District
605.1000: 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.
51215011/05/81
0140E Redondo Beach City School District
605.1000: 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.
41118110/14/80
0105E San Francisco Community College District
605.1000: 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.
31012710/12/79
0104E Santa Clara Unified School District
605.1000: 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.
31012409/26/79
0100E Sacramento City Unified School District
605.1000: 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.
31010908/14/79
0040E Sonoma County Office of Education
605.1000: 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.
158811/23/77