All notes for Subtopic 606.08000 – Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 606.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs 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. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 606.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs Where the City’s failure to fulfill its bargaining obligation with respect to subcontracting bargaining unit work constituted an egregious unilateral change, the employer’s separate unfair practice contributed to the deadlock in negotiations by creating a new impediment—a significant new set of conditions over which the union had to bargain on a catch-up basis, after the fact, which was more than sufficient to deny the City the right to impose. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, pp. 6 & 15.) The subcontracting violation preceded impasse, was not remote in time, and coincided with the City’s refusal to go back to the table. In fact, the City’s subcontracting decision came at a critical time during negotiations for a first contract. The City, while seeking concessions in wages and benefits at the bargaining table due to budget constraints, secretly devised a unilateral means to extract still more savings from the bargaining unit. Because the City failed and refused to comply with its legal duty to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain, the parties lost the opportunity to discuss concessions or other proposals that may have led to viable options in lieu of at least some of the layoffs and involuntary demotions, and destroyed the good faith conditions that would be required for the parties to have any hope of bridging their other divides. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 606.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs Although per se violations may also serve as indicia of bad faith in support of a surface bargaining allegation, there was no evidence that the City’s unilateral change to the employer paid member contribution, which was unilaterally imposed post-impasse, had contributed to the breakdown in pre-impasse negotiations or had undermined IBEW’s authority during the prior negotiations. Although the Board ordered the City to remedy the unilateral change violation, it dismissed the complaint’s separate bad-faith bargaining allegation where no other probative evidence of bad faith had been presented and the City’s unilateral change occurred after negotiations had already broken down. (p. 36.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2341M | City of San Jose 606.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs Evidence of separate unfair practices, including the respondent’s conduct at or away from the bargaining table, is part of the totality of circumstances that may indicate bad faith in support of a surface bargaining allegation. Where a surface bargaining charge includes factual allegations that would constitute per se violations of the duty to bargain, the charging party may, in effect, allege those facts twice – once as standalone or “per se” violations, and once as indicators of the respondent’s bad faith within the totality of circumstances. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 94 | 12/06/13 |
| 1890M | City and County of San Francisco 606.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs Where the City charter required the union to nominate arbitrators prior to the start of negotiations, the City’s lawsuit to compel the union to name such arbitrators did not constitute bad faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 72 | 03/12/07 |
| 1638H | Regents of the University of California 606.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs To determine whether a union has waived its right to engage in a sympathy strike, the Board uses the standard in Children’s Hospital Medical Center v. Nurses Ass’n. Under that standard, a general no-strike clause will not be read to apply to sympathy strikes unless there is extrinsic evidence demonstrating a mutual intent to include such strikes. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 162 | 06/09/04 |
| 1516S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 606.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs 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. | 27 | 52 | 04/07/03 |
| 1264E | Ventura County Community College District 606.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs Once an exclusive representative is selected, the employer must refrain from bargaining directly with bargaining unit employees. However the employer does have a free speech right. An employer's speech does not generally violate the EERA, unless the speech contains a threat of reprisal or promise of benefit; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29091 | 05/12/98 |
| 1249S | State of California (Department of Personnel Admistration (California State Employees Association/Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 606.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs Governor's delay in making a firm salary proposal until after adoption of the final budget is neither a per se violation or evidence of bad faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29050 | 01/28/98 |
| 1179S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Union of Safety Employees) 606.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs Employer's statement of opinion regarding the reasons for lack of progress in negotiations although possibly incomplete and/or misleading does not constitute prima facie evidence of bad faith bargaining as long as the communication is not threatening and coercive; p. 5, p. 6, warning letter more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28017 | 12/04/96 |