All notes for Subtopic 607.02000 – With Nonexclusive Representatives

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate

607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
A public agency must meet and consult with an recognized employee representative prior to adopting or modifying labor relations rules under 3507 but it nee not do so when determining whether an individual proposed bargaining unit is appropriate under rules previously adopted. more or view all topics or full text.

607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
a local agency must meet and consult in good-faith with representatives of an employee organization actually conceded to represent employees, prior to making a determination as to what is an appropriate bargaining unit, whether or not the employee organizations actually become a "recognized" employee organization. Unless and until the City adopt rules and regulations pursuant to Government Code section 3507, providing for exclusive recognition following an employee vote, it must recognize all employee organizations representing at least some employees and must meet and confer with each of them about wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment (Government Code section 3505) and meet and consult with each of them about matters concerning the ground rules pertaining to employee representation relationships (Government Code section 3507), including, of course, the designation of appropriate employee units. more or view all topics or full text.
1316H Regents of the University of California (Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
No violation of duty to meet and discuss because charging party failed to identify a single term or condition of employment that is actually changed. more or view all topics or full text.
233006602/24/99

607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
Representation rights afforded noncertified unions are not equivalent to the representation rights afforded exclusive representatives. [33 Cal.3d at 955] Specifically, right to represent given noncertified unions under EERA does not encompass the right to engage in negotiations looking toward a binding written agreement which is given to exclusive representatives. [33 Cal.3d at 955] more or view all topics or full text.
1252H Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
Although the HEERA precludes the University from unilaterally changing a term or condition of employment within the scope of representation when employees are exclusively represented, the University has no such obligation in the absence of an exclusive representative; p. 10. Where higher education employees are not exclusively represented, HEERA obligates University only to communicate its intention prior to making changes to affected employees; pp. 11-12. Where University has communicated its intention to make certain changes to its nonexclusively represented employee and has completed partial implementation of those changes before the certification of an exclusive representative, final implementation of these changes is part of the dynamic status quo and not an unlawful unilateral change; pp. 11-12. pp. 11-12. more or view all topics or full text.
222906302/27/98
1188H Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
For nonexclusively represented employees, the employer's decision becomes effective when it is clear the employer decided to implement the program, not the date the employer subsequently implements the program; p. 21. more or view all topics or full text.
212806703/19/97
1189H Regents of the University of California (Woods, et al.)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
University must notify individual employees of proposed changes in employment conditions and, if the employee so desires, to meet and discuss the changes with the nonexclusive representative; p. 2, warning letter. Refusal to meet and discuss with a non-exclusive representative is violation of HEERA section 3571(a) (citation); p. 2, fn. 2. more or view all topics or full text.
212806603/19/97
1153E Los Angeles Unified School District (Association of Public School Supervisory Employees)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
The duty owed to a nonexclusive representative is to provide notice and a reasonable opportunity to discuss wages, fringe benefits and other matters of fundamental concern to the employment relationship before the employer reaches a decision on such matters; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
202710506/06/96
1055H Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees and Anisman)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
Employer's duty to nonexclusively represented employees is to notify employees of proposed changes in employment conditions and meet with the employees union if requested. Employer has more latitude in implementing proposals than just those "reasonably comprehended" within the proposals noticed to employees. Nonexclusive representative rights to meet and confer does not encompass right to negotiate salary and/or employment conditions of other employees. more or view all topics or full text.
182512809/12/94
0956E Summerville Elementary School District
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
The obligation imposed on the public school employer to meet with a nonexclusive representative by providing notice and a reasonable opportunity to meet and discuss, is not the same as that imposed with regard to an exclusive representative; p. 2, warning letter. An employer does not owe the nonexclusive representative the same duty to bargain in good faith which is owed to an exclusive representative; p. 4, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text.
162317011/12/92
0842H Regents of the University of California (Davis, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Diego)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
HEERA requires University to notify nonexclusively represented individual employees of proposed changes in employment conditions and, if the employee chooses to have his or her union meet with employer to discuss the changes, such meetings are to be held upon request. Here, University failed to give adequate advance notice that a split payment was necessary and, instead, simply notified the employees that the decision had been made. Whatever information was disseminated was too ambiguous to satisfy University's duty to give notice; p. 13-14; pp. 40-48, proposed dec. Nonexclusively represented employeed affected by employer's decision about split payment of merit salary increase did not have reasonable amount of time between notice and implementation of change to allow them to exercise the representational rights recognized by the court amount of time between notice and implementation of change to allow them to exercise the representational rights recognized by the court What constitues adequate notice should be determined by the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Method of notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise employees of the impending charge; consideration should be given to factors as reliability of past means of giving notice, size of employee group, geographic considerations, and availability of various methods of communication. more or view all topics or full text.
142118909/27/90
0829H Regents of the University of California (Fried, et al.)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
Board held that UC did not violate the duty to meet and confer where approximately four months' notice was given prior to final decision to raise parking rates, two meet and discuss sessions were held, and several proposals both oral and written were costed out and discussed with the individual employees. more or view all topics or full text.
142115007/24/90
0763H Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
No breach of duty to give notice to employees or meet and confer with their representative where allegations insufficient to reflect change in policy. more or view all topics or full text.
132019309/14/89
0650E Redwoods Community College District
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
EERA section 3543.2, which provides that an employer may consult with any employees or employee organizations about matters outside of scope, is limited by other provisions of the EERA, such as section 3543.1(a) which states that only the exclusive representative may represent that unit in their "employment relations" with the public school employer. This limitation on rival unions is not limited to negotiable items, but applies to the broader arena of "employment relations." However, mere discussion between management and other employee groups, rather than making recommendations to management, does not constitute "dealing with" the employer. more or view all topics or full text.
121901812/28/87
0359H Regents of the University of California * * * VACATED by Cole Letter of October 29, 1986 * * *
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
University under obligation to meet and discuss change in policy on limit of hire of lecturers. Vacated by Cole letter of 10/29/86. more or view all topics or full text.
71429311/23/83
0285E Los Angeles Unified School District
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
Board expressly overruled San Dieguito Union HSD (1977) EERB Decision No. 22 and concluded that PECG (1980) PERB Decision No. 118-S is applicable to public school employees (duty to provide nonexclusive representative reasonable opportunity to meet and discuss); p. 3. Obligation imposed by EERA on public school employers with respect to a nonexclusive representative is to provide notice and a reasonable opportunity to meet and discuss wages, fringe benefits and other matters of fundamental concern to employment relationship; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text.
71406902/17/83
0229S State of California (Franchise Tax Board) (Association of California State Attorneys and Hearing Officers)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
Obligation imposed by Ralph C. Dills on the State employer with respect to the non-exclusive representative is to provide a reasonable opportunity to meet and discuss subjects which are basic to the employment relationship; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text.
61317407/29/82
0211H California State University, Sacramento
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
Under HEERA a change in policy regarding campus access for non-exclusive representatives requires prior notice to affected employee organizations and reasonable opportunity to discuss the projected change; p. 32. Reversed in 168 Cal.App.3d 937. more or view all topics or full text.
61311504/30/82
0212H Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
University required to provide prior notice and an opportunity to discuss contemplated changes in wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment to nonexclusive representatives. However, obligation under HEERA to give notice and meet with nonexclusive representatives is not the same as that imposed with regard to exclusive representatives; p. 11. Under HEERA, the procedural ground rules for meeting and discussion are properly the subject matter to discussions between the Regents and affected nonexclusive representatives; p. 11. Unreasonable restrictions placed on the presumptive right of access for a representative organization is a clear nexus for a finding that the Regents violated HEERA subsections 3571(a) and (b); p. 21. The language of HEERA and its overall statutory scheme provide a clear indication that the Legislature did not intend to consign nonexclusive The language of HEERA and its overall statutory scheme provide a clear indication that the Legislature did not intend to consign nonexclusive SEERA not provided for similarly or identically in HEERA does not mean that the policy embodied by such provision is not applicable to HEERA; pp. 6-7. HEERA's express provisions indicate a legislative intent to preserve representation rights for employees and employee organizations until such time as an exclusive representative is selected; p. 7. Subsection 3560(e) makes clear the Legislature's intention that designation of nonexclusive representatives is an integral part of the statutory scheme; pp. 7-8. The statutory language of subsection 3565 separates meeting and conferring from other representational functions and is an indication that the Legislature intended to enable employees to be represented by nonexclusive representatives prior to selection of an exclusive representative. The very definition of the term "employee represented by nonexclusive representatives prior to selection of an exclusive representative. The very definition of the term "employee with" the higher education employer regarding employment matters. Otherwide, the Legislature would have limited the definition accordingly, rather than including within that definition " . . . any organization of any kind . . . ."; pp. 9-10. more or view all topics or full text.
61311604/30/82
0022E San Dieguito Union High School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, and also OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 285
607.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT; With Nonexclusive Representatives
No duty to consult with non-exclusive representative under EERA. Consult means employer must consider proposals but is not bound to attempt in good faith to reach a negotiated written agreement. more or view all topics or full text.
136909/02/77