All notes for Subtopic 608.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2884H | Regents of the University of California 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General After a mid-contract accretion, the parties have a right to bargain over terms and conditions of employment for newly added employees. Depending on the length of such bargaining, one or more of the employer’s wage adjustment cycles may occur before post-accretion negotiations are complete. To maintain the status quo during a cycle that occurs during post-accretion negotiations, the employer must normally afford newly added employees all contractually mandated wage adjustments. However, if it is unclear how one or more of the contract’s wage adjustments apply to the newly added employees, then the status quo for that cycle is the adjustments the employees would have received had they remained unrepresented. Here, it was sufficiently clear how to apply the contract, and the University correctly implemented both the across-the-board increase and the contract’s incentive award program (IAP) provision. (pp. 2-3 & 10-14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 91 | 12/06/23 |
| 2858M | City and County of San Francisco 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General After three months, the City eventually stopped unlawfully interpreting its Charter and bargained over the union’s proposal for a retroactive payment. But retraction is not available as a defense to having applied a local rule unlawfully and engaged in per se bad faith bargaining, and even when a retraction defense is available against a bad faith bargaining claim, retraction after three months of bad faith conduct does not immunize a party against liability. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 156 | 04/26/23 |
| 2855E | The Accelerated Schools 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General An employer is privileged to implement its changes before completing effects negotiations based on Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 720 (Compton) if: (1) implementation date is based on an immutable deadline or an important managerial interest, such that a delay in implementation beyond the date chosen would effectively undermine the employer’s right to make the decision; (2) employer gives sufficient advance notice of the decision and implementation date to allow for meaningful negotiations prior to implementation; and (3) employer negotiates in good faith prior to and after implementation]. (Id., pp. 14-15.) PERB clarified that its decision does not preclude an employer from asserting a Compton defense, including in circumstances where the Education Code sets a deadline by which layoffs must occur. (p. 16, fn. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 139 | 03/17/23 |
| 2855E | The Accelerated Schools 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Although an employer engaged in effects negotiations need not bargain over the policy reasons for its decision, it cannot refuse to bargain over alternatives, as those alternatives fundamentally impact the employment effects at issue. (Oxnard Union High School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 51 (Oxnard); County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Decision No. 2799-M, p. 27; Anaheim Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2504, pp. 10-11, 15 & adopting proposed decision at p. 41; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 22.) Indeed, one purpose of effects bargaining is to permit the exclusive representative an opportunity to persuade the employer to consider alternatives that may diminish the impact of the decision on employees. (Oxnard, supra, PERB Decision No. 2803, p. 52; Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2799, p. 27.) (p. 14, fn. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 139 | 03/17/23 |
| 2799M | County of Santa Clara 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General While an employer need not negotiate over a decision that is outside the scope of representation, it nonetheless must meet and confer over alternatives to the decision as part of effects bargaining. (County of Sonoma (2021) PERB Decision No. 2772-M, p. 54 (Sonoma); Anaheim Union High School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2504, pp. 10-11, 15 & adopting proposed decision at p. 41; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 22.) Thus, one purpose of effects bargaining is to permit the exclusive representative an opportunity to persuade the employer to consider alternatives that may diminish the impact of the decision on employees. (Sonoma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2772-M, p. 55.) County failed to bargain in good faith over consequences for surveillance technology ordinance violations where it refused to respond to the Association’s proposed alternatives, such as exempting Association members from the criminal provision, or explaining why traditional disciplinary measures were not adequate to address Ordinance violations. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 94 | 12/20/21 |
| 2799M | County of Santa Clara 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General An employer normally may not implement a nonnegotiable decision while effects bargaining continues and instead must wait until the parties have reached agreement or impasse over the negotiable effects of the decision. (County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, p. 25.) There is an exception, however, if the employer can establish each of three elements: (1) the implementation date was based on an immutable deadline or an important managerial interest, such that a delay in implementation beyond the date chosen would effectively undermine the employer’s right to make the decision; (2) the employer gave sufficient advance notice of the decision and implementation date to allow for meaningful negotiations prior to implementation; and (3) the employer negotiated in good faith prior to and after implementation. (Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 720, PERB Decision No. 720, pp. 14-15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 94 | 12/20/21 |
| 2745M | County of Sacramento 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 39 | 09/18/20 |
| 2701I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Employer’s offer to meet and confer with the exclusive representative over the elimination of a stipend after notifying the representative that it would stop making the payments does not ameliorate its unilateral change in past practice. When the exclusive representative first learns of a negotiable change after the decision has been made, by definition, there has been inadequate notice. (p. 56.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2597E | Sacramento City Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General When a union requests relevant information, the employer must either fully supply the information or timely and adequately explain its reasons for not doing so, and the employer bears the burden of proof as to any defense, limitation, or condition that it asserts. (pp. 8-9) A party answering a RFI must exercise the same diligence and thoroughness as it would “in other business affairs of importance,” and a charging party need not show that it suffered harm or prejudice as a result of a responding party’s lack of care. (Petaluma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2485 at pp. 19, 24.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 2597E | Sacramento City Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Information pertaining to non-bargaining unit employees is not presumed relevant, and the exclusive representative thus bears the burden of demonstrating that such information is relevant and necessary to its representational duties. A union may demonstrate relevance where it has requested information that may help it compare the disciplinary circumstances relevant to a bargaining unit employee, including the allegations and any resulting discipline, with prior circumstances involving non-bargaining unit employees. (p. 9, fn. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 77 | 11/19/18 |
| 2558E | Children of Promise Preparatory Academy 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General An employee organization recognized or certified as the exclusive representative enjoys a conclusive presumption of majority support for a one-year period following recognition or certification, and an employer may not refuse to bargain with an exclusive representative during that period of time. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 124 | 03/27/18 |
| 2544E | Bellflower Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General The Board rejected a school district’s exception that a Board-ordered remedy including restoration of the status quo and make-whole relief conflicted with federal law governing special education. The district’s statement of exceptions and supporting brief included no citation to any provision of the federal statute or decisional law interpreting it, and the district failed to explain how PERB’s customary remedy for a unilateral change would conflict with federal law. The district’s filing both failed to comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions, and, even if considered, had no merit. Unless a remedial measure positively conflicts with “inflexible standard[s]” or “immutable provisions” set by external law, the fact that it affects matters normally within the jurisdiction of another tribunal does not, by itself, make PERB’s remedy improper. (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E | Bellflower Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General In the absence of any explanation or briefing from a school district who argued that the management rights clause remained in effect after 2010, or a request for reconsideration showing both extraordinary circumstances and that the Board’s determination in a prior decision that the parties’ agreement had expired in 2010 contained prejudicial error of fact, the Board had no grounds to consider the district’s waiver defense, which was based on the management rights language, in this case. (p. 7.) The interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement is not simply a factual finding of the sort which the Board or its agents are free to disregard in a subsequent case involving the same language. Because of its significance for governing the parties’ ongoing relationship, a Board finding as to the meaning of a contract term is more akin to a question of law, particularly where, as here, the question is whether the contract itself is illegal or void for public policy, as declared by the three-year limit for collective bargaining agreements set forth in EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (h). (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E | Bellflower Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General The Board rejected a school district’s exception that it had no notice that the ALJ considered the duration language of the parties’ agreement ambiguous or that the meaning of the duration language would be dispositive in the case by determining whether the management rights clause remained in effect. (p. 5-6.) A PERB hearing officer has the power and the duty to “[i]nquire fully into all issues and obtain a complete record upon which the decision can be rendered” and to “[r]ender and serve the proposed decision on each party.” (PERB Reg. 32170.) A hearing officer is not required to advise the parties of which factual disputes or legal issues may determine the outcome of the case, nor to make preliminary factual findings at the hearing itself so that the parties may object or offer additional evidence or argument on the issue. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2544E | Bellflower Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Because the uncontradicted, unimpeached testimony of three union witnesses and one management witness was that the parties’ collective bargaining agreement had expired in 2010, the Board denied a school district’s exception arguing that the agreement’s management rights clause had remained in effect and served as a waiver of the union’s right to bargain over subcontracting of the district’s bus services. (p. 5.) Uncontradicted, unimpeached testimony at hearing is sufficient to carry the burden of proof in an unfair practice case. (PERB Reg. 32178.) more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 70 | 12/15/17 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Although Charging Party requested a resumption of negotiations over health benefit contributions following a declaration of impasse and the exhaustion of applicable impasse resolution procedures, it pointed to no ground rules or similar agreement requiring the parties to negotiate this issue separately from the other subjects in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was legally privileged to refuse to resume bargaining. (p. 12.) Although parties may agree to ground rules governing the time and place of their negotiations, including arrangements to discuss specific subjects separately or in a particular order, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others or make continued negotiations conditional upon reaching agreement over a single subject and thereby refuse to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Applying precedents decided under other PERB-administered statutes, the Board held that a the Trial Court Act employer need not make a second formal declaration of impasse or re-invoke the impasse resolution procedures contained in its local rules when those same procedures had already been exhausted without resolving the same dispute over a successor MOU. PERB cases decided under EERA and the Dills Act hold that “once the statute’s impasse procedures have been concluded, PERB has no authority to recertify impasse or [to] reinvoke impasse procedures,” which have already failed to resolve the dispute. (p. 11.) Thus, it was unnecessary for the Court to make another formal declaration of impasse or invoke the impasse resolution procedures in the EERR when those same procedures had already been exhausted without resolving the same dispute over a successor MOU. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2443M | City of Milpitas 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General A recognized employee organization may waive its MMBA right to meet and confer. However, waiver is disfavored and must be clear and unmistakable. An employer raising a waiver defense must establish that: (1) it provided the employee organization clear and unequivocal notice that it would act on a matter, and (2) the employee organization clearly, unmistakably and intentionally relinquished its right to meet and confer in good faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 36 | 07/29/15 |
| 2438E | Los Angeles Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General A union is not obliged to repeat a request for information when it was sufficiently clear to the District that the partial compliance would not satisfy the request, and when it would be futile to repeat its request. A union’s entitlement to all of the requested information is not diminished by the employer’s production of only a portion of the information, even when that portion covered the majority of the requested information. An unreasonable delay in providing requested information is tantamount to a failure to produce the information at all. The burden on the union of attempting to interview every reassigned teacher in person, or of having to send blanket communications to all bargaining unit members requesting that reassigned teachers contact them, compared with the District’s ease of providing the names and locations of reassigned teachers to the union, indicates that union does not have “equal access to the same information from the same source.” more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 26 | 06/25/15 |
| 2271M | City of Davis 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General City failed to establish a business necessity for implementing its last, best and final offer, in that it did not declare a fiscal emergency and had reserves sufficient to face projected shortfall. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 12 | 06/08/12 |
| 2147E | Fontana Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Under EERA, public school employers and exclusive representatives owe a mutual duty to meet and confer with one another in good faith concerning issues within the scope of representation. Thus, the employer’s duty to negotiate in good faith is owed to the exclusive representative employee organization. Consequently, individual employees lack standing to allege that an employer has failed to bargain in good faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 10 | 12/10/10 |
| 2084H | Regents of the University of California (Los Angles) 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General When an employer owes a duty to meet and discuss, the employer must consider the exclusive representative’s proposals but is not bound to attempt in good faith to reach a negotiated written agreement. Although the Board determines whether an employer has satisfied this obligation on a case-by-case basis, it recognizes the following three touchstones in its analysis: (1) notice before the employer’s decision is final or implemented, (2) reasonable time and opportunity for meeting and discussing, between the notice and the final decision or implementation, and (3) good faith conduct in listening to and considering proposals. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 20 | 12/14/09 |
| 2092E | Desert Sands Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Neither a later reversal or rescission of a unilateral action nor a subsequent negotiation on the subject of a unilateral action excuses an unlawful unilateral change violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 39 | 02/01/10 |
| 2092E | Desert Sands Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General In cases alleging a non-negotiable decision had an effect on work hours, the charging party bears the burden of alleging facts establishing an actual impact on employees’ work hours. The impact must be reasonably certain to occur and causally related to the non-negotiable decision. Consequently, PERB will not find an unlawful unilateral change when the alleged effect on terms and conditions of employment is “indirect and speculative.” more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 39 | 02/01/10 |
| 2112I | Los Angeles Superior Court 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General The charge failed to state a prima facie case for unlawful unilateral change, where the alleged changes were outside the scope of representation. Union alleged the employer made changes in practice by eliminating nine regular court interpreter assignments and leaving vacancies in daily as-needed assignments unfilled. The Court Interpreter Act specifically provides that the “delivery of court services” is outside the scope of representation, and the Board has held that an employer’s determination of staff or service levels is not within the scope of representation. A matter outside scope does not become a mandatory subject of bargaining because the parties negotiate over it or even reach an agreement. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 94 | 06/07/10 |
| 2109H | Regents of the University of California * * * OVERRULED by Culver City Employees Association v. City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General * * * OVERRULED by City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M, where the Board held that waiver by contract is an affirmative defense that must be plead and proved by the party asserting it. A charging party is not required to disprove or refute waiver by contract as part of its prima facie case in a unilateral change case. * * *It is not an unlawful unilateral change for the employer to enforce the written terms of the MOU. No prima facie case for unilateral change in policy or practice where the union failed to allege conduct by the employer that was inconsistent with the terms of the MOU. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 83 | 05/19/10 |
| 2104M | County of Mendocino 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General No violation where employer retracted 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error. Employee classifications that moved to a new bargaining unit were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. Employer correction of the error, resulting in the cessation of the increase to classifications no longer covered by the MOUs, does not amount to a change in policy where the classifications were not entitled to the increase, and where the employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 74 | 04/21/10 |
| 2103M | City of San Diego (Office of the City Attorney) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M. * * *Employer press release and website posting soliciting employees to rescind service credit purchases were not protected employer communications, as the statements went beyond merely informing employees of existing facts, views, arguments or opinions. Employer speech that is used as a means of violating the Act, or that evidences an attempt to bypass the exclusive representative is not entitled to protection more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 63 | 03/26/10 |
| 2097M | County of Riverside * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain need not identify specific effects, and also that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of its decision. * * *In dealing with effects bargaining, the employee organization is entitled to reasonable notice and an opportunity to bargain over the negotiable effects of a non-negotiable decision. The employee organization’s request must clearly indicate the desire to bargain over the effects as opposed to the decision itself. Failure by the employee organization to make a valid request to bargain the negotiable effects of the decision constitutes a waiver of the right to bargain regarding those effects. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 49 | 02/10/10 |
| 2044M | County of Sacramento 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General A statement by an employer that it may unilaterally change a mandatory subject of bargaining did not establish a waiver by the union. Specifically, the County placed an annual reservation clause in its administrative policy for the plan. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 126 | 06/30/09 |
| 2045M | County of Sacramento 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General A statement by an employer that it may unilaterally change a mandatory subject of bargaining did not establish a waiver by the union. Specifically, the County placed an annual reservation clause in its administrative policy for the plan. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 127 | 06/30/09 |
| 2043M | County of Sacramento 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General A statement by an employer that it may unilaterally change a mandatory subject of bargaining did not establish a waiver by the union. Specifically, the County placed an annual reservation clause in its administrative policy for the plan. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 122 | 06/30/09 |
| 1972E | Temple City Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General District declined to ratify tentative agreement following Governor's office announcement of severe mid-year cuts in education funding. No requirement that a party ratify a tentative agreement. However, the duty to bargain is revived following the rejection of a tentative agreement. District ratification of modified tentative agreement with offer to resume negotiations if the adopted tentative agreement was unacceptable was nothing more than a counter proposal. Contract language required the parties to fund originally negotiated salary increase or whatever portion of increase that could be supported by budget cuts. This language did not require that a salary increase be implemented without further negotiations if sufficient funds were available. The agreement did not establish the actual amount of the salary increase once spending cuts were identified. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 132 | 08/26/08 |
| 1967S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General The State did not have a duty to negotiate about the decision to implement a new review process even though the decision impacted wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. When the right of the State to manage its operations and achieve its mission by providing constitutionally required health care for inmates in the California prison system is balanced against the benefits to be achieved under the duty to bargain the decision with the union, the balance tipped in favor of the State. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 109 | 06/27/08 |
| 1895E | Newark Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General The District violated EERA when it failed to meet and negotiate in good faith by refusing, during the 2003-2004 re-opener negotiations, to negotiate concerning the selection of a health insurance carrier. The fact that the health insurance carrier language was contained in the Compensation Article, required the District to negotiate the Association's proposal related to that article; the District did not act in good faith in advancing its positions related to the negotiability of the health care carrier and waiver language. Although the pre-paid legal services plan was negotiable, the District did not unilaterally implement the program, because the program did not have a generalized and continued impact on the bargaining unit. The Association's proposal regarding the make up and dissemination of the STAR results is not negotiable and impinged upon managerial rights. Although the collective bargaining agreement language waives the right to negotiate the health carrier, with the parties agreeing instead to consult, the Compensation Article was subject to negotiation during the 2003-2004 school year negotiations as a re-opener. Since the health care carrier language in dispute is part of the Compensation Article, the District should have negotiated the Association's re-opener proposal related to health carriers, even though the proposal did not include an express repudiation of the contract’s waiver language. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 78 | 03/27/07 |
| 1849M | County of Santa Cruz 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Extra help employees are not permanent and thus are not part of the Association’s bargaining unit under their collective bargaining agreement. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 151 | 08/16/06 |
| 1848S | State of California (Department of Corrections) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *No prima facie violation of State’s duty to bargain effects where there is no evidence that the Union demanded to bargain the effects of the change in staffing levels or submitted proposals addressing safety concerns. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 150 | 08/09/06 |
| 1762S | State of California (Department of Consumer Affairs) 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Dills Act Section 3515.5 does not provide a right to self-representation. While Wilson-Combs has the right to meet with her employer without the union, the State is not required to meet and confer with her over terms and conditions of employment. Wilson-Combs right to self-representation under the Dills Act does not include the right to be represented by private counsel. The State’s duty to bargain is owed to the exclusive representative, not to individual employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 121 | 04/15/05 |
| 1729E | Berkeley Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Board found specific language in collective bargaining agreement did constitute waiver by union to bargain over health benefit increase. Clearly stated that if contract expired District would no longer cover increases in health care benefits. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 45 | 12/21/04 |
| 1388S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General The Department's decision to reorganize was outside the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31107 | 05/25/00 |
| 1534E | Colton Joint Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Culver City Employees Association v. City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Culver City (2020) PERB Decision No. 2731-M, where the Board held that a contractual waiver expires with the contract unless the parties have clearly and unmistakably agreed that it continues past the contract expiration. * * *No unilateral change where employer actions are consistent with a previously unenforced provision of the collective bargaining agreement. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 94 | 06/23/03 |
| 1252H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General 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. | 22 | 29063 | 02/27/98 |
| 1189H | Regents of the University of California (Woods, et al.) 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General No prima facie case for failure to meet and discuss effects of layoff where charge fails to allege that charging parties actually requested to meet and discuss those effects; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28066 | 03/19/97 |
| 1186E | Hacienda La Puente Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Although impacting only one employee, the District's belief that the management rights clause authorized it to unilaterally change a unit member's shift illustrates that the decision was a change in policy and not simply an isolated breach of contract. Also, there is no evidence to suggest the District would refrain from changing more employee's shifts pursuant to the management rights clause; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28056 | 02/27/97 |
| 1163E | Arcata Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525, pp. 2-10, where the Board held a change in work hours for a vacant position falls within the scope of representation, even where the change is prompted by an employer’s decision to alter its nature, direction, or level of service. * * *In unilateral change of hours of vacant position, it is the employer's burden to show the change was not within the scope of bargaining because the change was based on factors other than labor cost considerations. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27120 | 06/26/96 |
| 1154E | El Centro School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General The zipper clause does not relieve exclusive representative from requesting to bargain after notice from employer of pending change. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27106 | 06/07/96 |
| 1092E | Marin Community College District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Although creation of a practice under which the step placements were made breached the obligation to negotiate under EERA, it does not follow automatically that the step placements of the former managers constituted independent violations of the Act; p. 88, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26070 | 03/21/95 |
| 0911E | Cloverdale Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General While District is free to modify teachers' work day schedule consistent with the provisions of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the contractual provisions relied on by the District here do not authorize such modification because they concerned the student instructional day; See Marysville Joint Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 314; pp. 17-18. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22179 | 11/20/91 |
| 0840S | State of California (Department of Mental Health) 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Department of Mental Health is responsible for unilateral change despite DPA's assertion that DPA is the employer and DPA did not enact the change. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21183 | 09/18/90 |
| 0768E | Allan Hancock Community College District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General No violation of duty to negotiate effects where Association failed to request to negotiate effects of decision; p. 2 of dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20203 | 09/20/89 |
| 2485E | Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Although charging party alleged several recognized “indicia” of bad faith, the charge failed to state a prima facie case that the public school employer had engaged in surface bargaining where the charge allegations demonstrated that the charging party’s own conduct of refusing to meet for negotiations unless employee observers were permitted to attend so frustrated negotiations that it precluded consideration of whether the public school employer had bargained in good faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 23 | 06/30/16 |
| 0499E | Los Rios Community College District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General No refusal to bargain - employer ready and willing and union cancelled scheduled meeting. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16105 | 03/21/85 |
| 0337E | Kern Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * Nature of specific demand to negotiate discussed. (Does not require specific proposal from exclusive representative.) more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14229 | 08/19/83 |
| 0318E | Pittsburg Unified School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Employer's reduction in work year (12 to 10 months) of clerical employees is within scope and not permitted by layoff sections of Education Code. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14176 | 06/10/83 |
| 0116E | Davis Unified School District/New Haven Unified School District/Newark Unified School District/State Center Community College District/Centinela Valley Union High School District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Evidence of pre-EERA employment practices relevant to determining unilateral change in past practice; pp. 20-21. Fact that District and Union were negotiating salary increments does not rebut unilateral change in salaries prior to impasse; pp. 25-26. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11031 | 02/22/80 |
| 0105E | San Francisco Community College District 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Constitutional provision prohibiting debt incurring beyond revenues does not excuse refusal to bargain; pp. 12-13. Contract law defenses separate from negotiating issues and irrelevant in light of PERB's jurisdiction; pp. 17-18. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10127 | 10/12/79 |
| 0928S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39) 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Board summarily affirms dismissal of charge that DPA violated 3516.5, and 3519(a), (b) and (c) of Dills Act by failing to give unions notice and opportunity to bargain before proposing an initiative to the Attorney General or people of the state which would allow the Governor, in state of fiscal emergency, to furlough or reduce salaries of state employees. Matters at issue found not to be within the scope of representation because: (1) the resolution of this conflict; and (2) such obligation would unduly abridge employers' freedom to exercise manageral prerogative. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23063 | 04/20/92 |
| 0927S | State of California (Governor Pete Wilson) (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges; Professional Engineers in California Government; California Association of Professional Scientists) 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General Board summarily affirms dismissal of charge that Governor violated 3516.5, and 3519(b) and (c) of Dills Act by failing to give unions notice and opportunity to bargain before proposing an initiative which would allow him, in state of fiscal emergency, to furlough or reduce salaries of state employees, to the Attorney General or people of the state. Matters at issue found not to be within the scope of representation because: (1) the mediatory influence of collective bargaining is not suited to the resolution of this conflict; and (2) such obligation would unduly abridge employers' freedom to exercise managerial prerogative. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23061 | 04/13/92 |
| 0919E | Sylvan Union Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M 608.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *No prima facie violation of District's duty to bargain effects where Association receives actual notice of decision and fails to make an adequate demand to bargain. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23017 | 01/07/92 |