All notes for Subtopic 605.05000 – Other
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2648M | City of Arcadia 605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other Employer committed per se violation of duty to bargain in good faith when it unilaterally determined that bargaining should commence much earlier than the parties had previously anticipated, unilaterally determined that this early start date would be paired with an “accelerated” approach capped by deadline, and, that, in the absence of a deal by the deadline, there would be a cooling off period in which there would be no negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 1 | 06/12/19 |
| 2418M | Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority 605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other Regardless of whether an employer has insisted to impasse on a proposal that would waive statutory rights, or as here, it has obtained a tentative but unratified agreement for such a waiver, it may not unilaterally impose such a waiver, even after bargaining in good faith to impasse. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 133 | 03/30/15 |
| 2284M | City of Lincoln 605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other City did not violate MMBA by failing to consider, conduct a vote, or take any other action related to a tentative agreement entered into between the city’s negotiator and the union and ratified by the union’s membership. Failure to take a formal action did not establish violation, where comments of city council members that tentative agreement did not go far enough and that they had directed staff to continue negotiating to reach a comprehensive agreement conveyed city council’s determination not to approve tentative agreement. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 69 | 09/06/12 |
| 2074M | City of Clovis 605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other MMBA section 3505.4 provides that once an impasse has been properly reached, a public agency “may implement its last, best and final offer.” The provision is permissive, not mandatory. The agency is not obligated to implement the last, best, and final offer. No binding agreement existed, as the Union failed to present sufficient evidence that it had tendered a post-impasse acceptance of the City’s last, best, and final offer. Furthermore, even if the Union had shown valid acceptance of the last, best, and final offer, MMBA section 3505.1 requires the agreement be reduced to writing and ratified by the governing agency before it will become binding on the parties. Here, the record was void of any evidence that an agreement was reduced to writing and ratified by the City. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 179 | 10/30/09 |
| 1986E | Rio School District 605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other Untimely or unfounded declaration of impasse is not a per se violation of the duty to bargain. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 8 | 11/21/08 |
| 1030E | San Mateo County Community College District 605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other Use of comparative data unnecessary as Board finds a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25027 | 12/28/93 |
| 0838E | Yolo County Superintendent of Schools 605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other Attempt by one negotiating party to dictate to the other who the members of their negotiating team may be is a per se violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21180 | 09/17/90 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other 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 |
| 0916S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39) 605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other 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 |