All notes for Subtopic 605.04000 – Conditional Bargaining; Piecemeal or Fragmented Bargaining
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2745M | County of Sacramento 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining 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 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining 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 |
| 2582M | City of Davis 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Presenting package proposals addressing matters within the scope of representation is not a refusal to bargain in good faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 51 | 09/05/18 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining 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 |
| 2504E | Anaheim Union High School District 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining An employer may lawfully propose withdrawal of pending grievances and/or unfair practice charges as part of a settlement involving mandatory subjects of bargaining; however, insisting to impasse “in the face of a clear and express refusal by the union to bargain” on the withdrawal of pending grievances or unfair practice charges or conditioning settlement of mandatory subjects on the withdrawal of grievances or unfair practice charges is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. Because employer’s proposal to limit its future liability by re-negotiating the parties’ contract language governing employee hours was within the scope of mandatory subjects for bargaining, the charging party’s allegation of insistence to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining was dismissed. (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 80 | 10/14/16 |
| 2504E | Anaheim Union High School District 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 80 | 10/14/16 |
| 2418M | Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining An employer may condition agreement on no strikes language by insisting, even to the point of impasse, on including a no strikes clause in the agreement. However, because a no strikes clause waives or limits statutory rights, an employer may not unilaterally impose such language, even after bargaining in good faith to impasse. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 133 | 03/30/15 |
| 2433M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining A hospital does not engage in piecemeal, fragmented or conditional bargaining by refusing a union’s request to combine negotiations over effects of layoff with successor MOU negotiations, when the Hospital does not condition successor MOU negotiations on an agreement regarding layoff effects, and when negotiations over both matters continue after the layoffs are implemented. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 4 | 06/15/15 |
| 2402M | County of Solano 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining PERB distinguishes between the negotiations of separate unit agreements during common sessions (“coordinated” bargaining) and the merger of negotiations for two or more units (“coalition” bargaining). In the first case, the respective unit proposals are considered independently of each other and the settlement of one contract is not dependent upon the settlement of the other. The only significant area of commonality is the use of the same bargaining sessions to address the separate issues. In coalition bargaining, however, negotiations are directed toward similar contracts, containing the same or similar provisions and the settlement of each contract is usually dependent upon the settlement of others. “Coordinated” bargaining connotes communication and accommodation among different bargaining agents, but independent decision making in separate bargaining processes. “Coalition” bargaining, on the other hand, implies a de facto merger of bargaining units, or an effort to achieve that end. To prevail on a theory that a party has refused to bargain by insisting on coalition bargaining, the charging party must prove that the responding party refused to bargain unless the bargaining units met jointly or that settlement of one contract was conditioned on the settlement of another contract. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 78 | 12/16/14 |
| 2341M | City of San Jose 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining A party may not refuse to discuss a mandatory subject, when requested to do so, by insisting on a proposal to postpone negotiations on that subject until agreement has been reached on others. City's alleged insistence to impasse on reopener proposals constituted “piecemeal” or “fragmented” bargaining tactic that arbitrarily limited the range of possible compromises by declaring certain mandatory subjects of bargaining off limits for discussion until complete agreement has been reached on all other subjects. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 94 | 12/06/13 |
| 1915M | County of Sierra 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Conditioning the negotiation of economic matters on the resolution of non-economic matters is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of surface bargaining when the economic and non-economic issues referenced by the parties are all within the scope of bargaining and when the charging party has the authority and control over both the economic and non-economic issues to be negotiated. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 119 | 06/27/07 |
| 1744E | Berkeley Unified School District 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Unit modifications are non-mandatory subjects of bargaining whereas vacation schedules are mandatory subjects of bargaining. It is unlawful to negotiate to impasse a proposal that conditions agreement to a non-mandatory subject on acceptance of mandatory subjects. However, Local 21 has not stated facts demonstrating that the District bargained to impasse over this proposal. Under PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5), a charge must state a clear and concise statement of the facts. In addition, the District withdrew the proposal after Local 21 filed the charge, an action which was appropriate. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 66 | 01/26/05 |
| 1425E | Sierra Sands Unified School District of Kern County 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Where District has authority to reopen contract, Union conditioning bargaining based upon reopening of contract does not demonstrate evidence of bad faith under PERB's totality of conduct test. Although charge alleged Association refused to negotiate Peer Assistance Review unless the District agreed to waive its right to bargain under the zipper clause of the parties collective bargaining agreement, no "per se" conditional bargaining violation found where parties not at impasse pursuant to PERB Regulation 32793. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32049 | 03/16/01 |
| 1330S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Conditioning agreement on union's "endorsement" of legislation necessary to implement the provisions of the agreement does not indicate bad faith because such endorsement is within the union's control; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30117 | 05/06/99 |
| 1249S | State of California (Department of Personnel Admistration (California State Employees Association/Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining State's linking issues of pay raise for state employees to acceptance of non-economic proposals (tax cuts) not per se bad faith bargaining but evidence of bad faith; p. 3, dismissal letter. Party has right to make proposals on nonmandatory subjects of bargaining; id. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29050 | 01/28/98 |
| 1030E | San Mateo County Community College District 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Released time is a mandatory subject of bargaining and also a statutory right under EERA. Insistence upon negotiations on a mandatory subject of bargaining is not a per se violation of the duty to bargain under the theory of conditional bargaining; p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25027 | 12/28/93 |
| 0900S | State of California, Department of Personnel Administration (Professional Engineers in California Government) 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Insistence upon negotiations on a mandatory subject such as released time is not a per se violation of the duty to bargain. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22151 | 09/13/91 |
| 0841E | Temple City Unified School District 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Record failed to show unlawful conditioned bargaining where District proposed that union withdraw grievances and unfair practice charges during initial phases of impasse procedure but did not insist upon those proposals during later phases of impasse procedure; p. 32-33, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21186 | 09/20/90 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining 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 insisting on or conditioning negotiations on a non-mandatory subject of bargaining. pp. 29-34; 34-37. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 23 | 06/30/16 |
| 0471E | Gilroy Unified School District 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Board held that while coordinated bargaining is a mandatory subject requiring good faith, coalition bargaining is not; pp. 7-8. Burden of proof on employer to show that it had an adequate basis for concluding that the union was attempting to engage in merged/coalition bargaining; p. 10. EERA does not prohibit "mixed" negotiating committee of classified and certificated employers; pp. 12-14. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16042 | 12/28/84 |
| 0291E | Modesto City Schools 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining Conditioning agreement on abandonment of Association's representation at informal level of grievance procedure violates duty to bargain in good faith; p. 30. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14090 | 03/08/83 |
| 0080E | Muroc Unified School District 605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining District's act of conditioning negotiations on acceptance of one item contract not unlawful where demand was retracted, negotiations conducted from that point on on all topics and demand had no discernable impact on negotiations; pp. 18-19. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10004 | 12/15/78 |