All notes for Subtopic 606.11000 – Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2582M City of Davis
606.11000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
Given that parties’ previous agreement did not contain binding arbitration, employer’s opposition to binding arbitration proposal and its explanation that it “was happy with the way things are” were not necessarily evidence of bad faith. more or view all topics or full text.
435109/05/18
2582M City of Davis
606.11000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
Where employer explained its position on union’s proposal and union did not raise the issue later in negotiations, no evidence of bad faith was found. more or view all topics or full text.
435109/05/18
2582M City of Davis
606.11000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
The Board has never held that a party’s failure to explain its position on a non-mandatory subject of bargaining is evidence of bad faith. more or view all topics or full text.
435109/05/18
2571M City of San Ramon
606.11000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
A party exhibits bad faith if it fails to adequately explain its inflexible position. (County of San Luis Obispo (2015) PERB Decision No. 2427-M, p. 29; San Bernardino City Unified School District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1270, at pp. 85-86.) However, an inflexible position that is fairly maintained and rationally supported does not, alone, prove bad faith. (Oakland Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 275, p. 16.) Hard bargaining cannot shield party from liability if it adopted a take-it-or-leave-it attitude or rushed to impasse. Employer adopted a “take-it-or-leave it” attitude when it (1) presented its position as an ultimatum, telling union it had a choice of either accepting new terms or arriving at impasse; (2) showed a predetermination to negotiate or impose its own proposals without carefully and mutually reviewing the union’s proposals, issues, and concessions; and (3) declared impasse based not on an assessment of the parties’ actual differences, but on the fact that it had not achieved capitulation to all of its demands. Furthermore, County of Solano (2014) PERB Decision No. 2402-M, is in tension with Regents of the University of California (1983) PERB Decision No. 356-H, p. 21, as it may be bad faith for employer to insist that it will not agree to different terms for different employee groups. more or view all topics or full text.
43606/20/18
2380M City of Selma
606.11000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
After the City declared impasse, it continued bad faith bargaining by refusing to meet with the Association to discuss Association’s counterproposals, thereby foreclosing the possibility of genuinely bridging the differences between them. more or view all topics or full text.
391106/27/14
2243E Santa Monica Community College District
606.11000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
A charge that alleged that the college district came to bargaining sessions without any proposals or counter-proposals failed to state a prima facie case; where charge failed to allege facts regarding what proposals the college district failed to make or respond to, and how the college district’s failure to make proposals or counter-proposals demonstrated a “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude, the charging party failed to satisfy its burden; PERB has held that an employer is not obligated to make a counter-proposal to a union’s proposal that is predictably unacceptable; where the charge failed to allege facts regarding what proposals were made by the union, therefore making it impossible to determine whether the college district had any obligation to respond to them, the charging party failed to satisfy its burden. more or view all topics or full text.
3613202/29/12
2108S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
606.11000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
The duty to bargain does not compel either party to make concessions. Insistence on a firm position is not necessarily evidence of bad faith because the law merely requires the parties to maintain a sincere interest in reaching an agreement, and even if the reasons for insisting on a particular position or contract term are questionable, if the belief is sincerely held, it may be maintained even if it produces a stalemate. The obligation to bargain in good faith merely 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. more or view all topics or full text.
348205/10/10
2094H Regents of the University of California * * * OVERRULED IN PART by amendment to HEERA section 3563.3, Stats. 2011, Ch. 539
606.11000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
Employer not obligated to make counterproposal to proposal that is predictably unacceptable. Employee organization’s amended proposal was predictably unacceptable because employer had previously rejected proposal incorporating language of regulations verbatim and amended proposal consisted of same language with code section numbers removed. Employer thus was not required to respond differently than it had to the original proposal. more or view all topics or full text.
344102/02/10
0823S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges)
606.11000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
Where the totality of the conduct of the parties evidences an intent to reach an agreement consistent with their obligation under section 3517 of the Act, a delay in making a firm salary proposal does not, by itself, indicate a lack of intent to reach such an agreement. (Writ summarily denied.) more or view all topics or full text.
142113506/29/90
0739S State of California, Department of Personnel Administration
606.11000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
Allegations that DPA failed to respond meaningfully to the union's salary proposal until five months after it was presented, and two months after the state budget was adopted, states a prima facie case, and presents a factual issue to be determined after a hearing on the merits; pp. 4-5. more or view all topics or full text.
132012106/08/89