All notes for Subtopic 606.06000 – Time Limit on Negotiations

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2691M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
City and union were not actually at impasse when the City declared impasse. The City declared impasse mainly due to the upcoming submission deadline, by which bargaining parties must submit to the City’s Board of Supervisors a successor MOU for ratification or suffer a penalty, viz., a delay in the implementation of new economic enhancements. PERB’s finding that the City relied on the Charter’s submission deadline to declare impasse prematurely provided significant evidence that the submission deadline, as applied in the case, prevented the parties from devoting sufficient time to hear and reflect on one another’s positions and endeavor in good faith to reach a mutual accommodation. In addition, the bargaining was rushed and there was insufficient time for the process to play out. The parties’ negotiations, then, were entirely antithetical to the MMBA’s core purpose of promoting “full communication” between public employers and employees’ chosen organizations, through a robust duty to meet and confer in good faith for a reasonable period of time. (MMBA, § 3500, subd. (a).) For these reasons, PERB found in union’s favor on its as-applied challenge. more or view all topics or full text.
01/17/20
2691M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
Adopting an interest arbitration framework in a city’s charter does not immunize the city from MMBA compliance. Interest arbitration procedures must be neutral and compliant with the MMBA, even if the city was not required to adopt them in the first place. Similarly, adopting an interest arbitration mechanism does not allow charter city to evade the rule that an MMBA employer must devote sufficient time to negotiations and dispute resolution. more or view all topics or full text.
01/17/20
2691M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
Precedent requires PERB to harmonize the San Francisco City Charter with the MMBA if possible. (Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell (1986) 41 Cal.3d 651, 665 [noting important goal of harmonizing the San Francisco City Charter with the MMBA, if possible].) PERB did so by reasonably and necessarily interpreting the Charter’s penalty provision, which delays the implementation of new economic enhancements, to have no impact so long as the parties submit some type of MOU by the Charter-imposed submission deadline, and by noting that what the parties submit by that deadline may take a variety of forms. PERB found the Charter provisions survived a facial challenge because the Charter does not proscribe the submitted MOU from including provisions that provide for mid-contract negotiations and mid-contract interest arbitration allowing potential economic enhancements to take effect mid-year and/or retroactive to any date. Such MOU provisions may be agreed-upon or ordered by the arbitrator, and may be included for any reason, including if there was insufficient time to complete good faith negotiations or good faith interest arbitration before the deadline. If the parties fail to reach agreement on certain issues by the submission deadline, they can agree to continue the meet and confer process on those issues in the body of a timely-submitted successor MOU. In this way, the MOU could be submitted in time, and the parties could still have additional time to negotiate on issues which they were prevented on reaching because of the submission deadline. During such mid-contract negotiations and interest arbitration, enhancements may be agreed upon, or ordered, to be retroactive to any date, because the parties will have satisfied the submission deadline by submitting an MOU as of that date. more or view all topics or full text.
01/17/20
2691M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
PERB addressed open questions regarding how to apply provisions of facially valid San Francisco City Charter when the parties approach Charter-mandated submission deadline but have not had enough time to complete good faith negotiations. PERB upheld union’s as-applied challenge to provisions of the San Francisco City Charter where union demonstrated that there was insufficient time for good faith negotiations and/or to reach a legitimate impasse prior to Charter-imposed submission deadline. more or view all topics or full text.
01/17/20
2691M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
To withstand a facial challenge, PERB determines that the San Francisco City Charter, by requiring good faith bargaining, mandates that negotiations “continue for a reasonable period of time,” where Charter’s interest arbitration mechanism is intended to apply after the parties have reached impasse. The “reasonable period of time” that the MMBA requires for good faith negotiations will vary greatly from negotiation to negotiation, depending on many factors. (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 41.) In determining the existence of impasse on a given date, PERB focuses on numerous factors, including: the number and length of negotiation sessions; the extent to which the parties have exchanged information and thoroughly discussed proposals and counterproposals in good faith; and the nature of the unresolved issues and the parties’ discussions of such issues to date. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, pp. 9-12 (San Ramon); County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, pp. 13-14 (Riverside).) Continued movement on minor issues will not prevent a finding of impasse if the parties remain deadlocked on one or more major issues. (Regents of the University of California (1985) PERB Decision No. 520-H, p. 17.) However, both parties must believe they are at the “end of their rope,” which is typically negated if one party displays continuing movement, or if the other party references a deadline for completion of negotiations and acts in accordance with that deadline. (Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text.
01/17/20
2691M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
The MMBA’s “centerpiece” is its requirement that every local agency “meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment” with unions representing the agency’s employees. (Boling v. PERB (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898, 913.) This central requirement is spelled out at MMBA section 3505, which requires that the parties should meet and confer for a reasonable period of time. The process should include adequate time for the resolution of impasses where specific procedures for such resolution are contained in local rule, regulation, or ordinance, or when such procedures are utilized by mutual consent. An employer cannot use its budget cycle as a reason for shortening negotiations, if doing so does not permit sufficient time for good faith negotiations. An employer may not insist on completing negotiations in time to adopt or implement its budget, or declare impasse merely because a particular deadline attached to the public entity’s budget process is approaching. more or view all topics or full text.
01/17/20
2648M City of Arcadia
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
PERB held employer engaged in bad faith by placing a time limit of negotiations from the onset, after which a cooling off period would occur during which negotiations would not be permitted. more or view all topics or full text.
06/12/19
2571M City of San Ramon
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
A party demonstrates bad faith when it rushes to impasse, or if its impasse declaration is “premature, unfounded, or insincere.” A budget deadline is not an exigent circumstance allowing employer to accelerate negotiations unilaterally. Employer holding a budget vote before completing negotiations and post-impasse procedures must refrain from voting on concessions that have not yet been ratified. While section 3505 of the MMBA provides that parties shall endeavor to reach agreement prior to a public agency’s adoption of its final budget, the statute’s use of non-mandatory language renders it “only hortatory” and contrasts with the law’s other, obligatory mandates, such as the duty to bargain for a reasonable and adequate amount of time to allow for good faith negotiations. (Dublin Professional Firefighters Local 1885 v. Valley Community Services District (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 116, 118.) more or view all topics or full text.
43606/20/18
2461M County of Tulare
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
The County did not improperly or prematurely declare impasse or set an arbitrary deadline when it asked for SEIU’s response to its LBFO by a requested date three weeks out, even when the County did not explain what would happen if SEIU did not respond by the requested date. Nor did the County insist that negotiations conclude by a certain time, and it took no action when SEIU did not respond by the requested date. Further, SEIU did not communicate to the County at any point that it had any movement to make or new proposals to offer, and SEIU’s conduct demonstrated that it believed further discussions would be futile. more or view all topics or full text.
408110/30/15
2380M City of Selma
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
The City’s claim that it was required to conclude bargaining in order to submit its annual budget to the city council was contradicted by the fact that the city council extended budget deadline. Alleged budget deadline did not excuse the City’s “rush to impasse.” more or view all topics or full text.
391106/27/14

606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
County did not violate MMBA by reducing wage offer following 10 day cooling off period after impasse because reduction for failure to reach agreement within a certain time was part of the wage offer. County's conduct in reducing lump sum wage offer by 2/13ths from $295 to $250 after the parties remained at impasse does not qualify as "conduct which tends to interfere with, restrain or coerce employee organization in its right to declare impasse. more or view all topics or full text.
1119H University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
Neither the statute nor PERB case law establishes a timeline for negotiations. The pace of an individual set of negotiations is influenced by many factors, including the conduct of both parties to the negotiations; p. 3, warning letter. Failure by one party to meet as frequently as the other party desires does not alone establish a bargaining violation; p. 1, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text.
192614410/04/95
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)
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
Collective bargaining has no necessary linkage with the State budgetary process. The two activities can take place at the same time and no resolution of collective bargaining is required before introduction or approval of the budget; p. 9, 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 the totality of the circumstances; p. 13, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
192601011/09/94
0326E Oakland Unified School District
606.6000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Time Limit on Negotiations
Bargaining scenario, coupled with employer's imposed deadline, smacks of bad faith; p. 39. more or view all topics or full text.
71419507/11/83