All notes for Subtopic 605.05000 – Other
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3054E |
Alliance College-Ready Public Schools
605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other
Supposals—typically “what-if” ideas that a negotiator puts forward to test the waters, while acknowledging that the negotiator does not currently have authority and would need to obtain authority from the principal—are not inherently lawful or unlawful; their legality depends on whether they are part of a tactic that constitutes either per se bad faith bargaining or constitutes an indicator of bad faith under the totality test. The facts here presented the most extreme possible use of supposals: Alliance chose to bargain using supposals only, with no proposals. That was very different from the more typical approach in which a party has already made actual proposals but, seeing no agreement, uses a supposal discussion to learn what types of solutions are worth considering and what issues to raise with the party’s principal. Alliance’s non-standard use of supposals amounted to a refusal to make proposals, which was a fully independent, alternative ground for finding that its conduct constituted a per se violation. (pp. 17, 28-29) more or view all topics or full text. |
08/28/26 | ||
| 3054E |
Alliance College-Ready Public Schools
605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other
A refusal to offer some explanation or substantiation for one’s position, where such information exists and has been requested, constitutes both an outright refusal to bargain and an indicator of bad faith under the totality of conduct test. (See County of San Luis Obispo (2015) PERB Decision No. 2427-M, p. 29 [noting that such conduct can amount to outright refusal to bargain]; see also City of Davis (2018) PERB Decision No. 2582-M, p. 19 [if “an argument is important enough to present in the give and take of bargaining, it is important enough to require some sort of proof of its accuracy,” internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; County of Tulare (2015) PERB Decision No. 2461-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 9 [“The obligation to bargain in good faith requires the parties to explain the reasons for a particular bargaining position with sufficient detail to permit the negotiating process to proceed on the basis of mutual understanding” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)]; City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 42 [allegation that employer refused to use substantive monetary figures when discussing its need for concessions indicated bad faith].) Board found that Alliance committed a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith when it repeatedly refused to provide an explanation for its governing board’s two-time rejection of tentative agreements, despite UTLA’s continued efforts to understand Alliance’s negotiation position. (pp. 24-26, 39) more or view all topics or full text. |
08/28/26 | ||
| 2939E |
Rocklin Unified School District
605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other
The District’s parental notification policy violates the California Constitution and multiple state laws, including the SAFETY Act, by singling out transgender and gender nonconforming students for different, adverse treatment that puts them at risk of harm. Thus, compliance with the parental notification policy would require certificated employees to engage in conduct that the State of California has said violates state law. Because “illegal subjects involve matters prohibited by external law or public policy,” they “may not be negotiated or included in a collective bargaining agreement, even if the parties were to agree to do so.” (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 44.) Given that the parental notification policy is illegal, any proposals the District could make regarding implementation would be illegal. Taking such an illegal position is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. (City of San Jose, supra, PERB Decision No. 2341-M, pp. 43-44; Berkeley Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2268, pp. 9-15.) In these unusual circumstances, therefore, even though the District was willing to bargain effects, it premised its offer to bargain on an illegal position that constituted bad faith bargaining. By the same token, RTPA lawfully refused to bargain unless the District first rescinded its illegal policy. In other words, it is impossible to bargain in good faith over the effects of an unlawful policy. For these reasons, we find in the alternative that the District violated its obligation to bargain in good faith over negotiable effects. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 129 | 01/28/25 |
| 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 * * * PARTIALLY OVERRULED by amendment to MMBA section 3505.1, Stats. 2013, Ch. 785, as recognized by Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools (2026) PERB Decision No. 3054, pp. 37-40 * * *
605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other
***PARTIALLY OVERRULED by amendment to MMBA section 3505.1, Stats. 2013, Ch. 785, as recognized by Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools (2026) PERB Decision No. 3054, pp. 37-40, where the Board held that employers are subject to potential unfair practice liability based on the employer’s governing board rejecting a tentative agreement. Liability can be established, for instance, if the employer rejected a tentative agreement with insufficient explanation to the union, engaged in regressive bargaining, or failed to vest its negotiators with sufficient authority.
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 * * * CLARIFIED by County of San Diego (2026) PERB Decision No. 3006-M and County of Riverside (2013) PERB Decision No. 2307-M * * *
605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other
*** CLARIFIED by County of San Diego (2026) PERB Decision No. 3006-M and County of Riverside (2013) PERB Decision No. 2307-M: A union cannot challenge an operative collective bargaining agreement setting the number of employees released for bargaining or the quantity of allowable release time, as those topics are bargainable. In contrast, the right to receive release time without loss of compensation or other benefits is a non-waivable minimum statutory guarantee.***
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 |