All notes for Subtopic 608.02000 – Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2611M County of Orange
608.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
Though it failed to prove employee representatives engaged in release time abuse, proving such abuse would not relieve the employer of its obligation to bargain proposed changes to release time policies in good faith. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text.
4310112/19/18
2443M City of Milpitas
608.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
The union president made a bargaining demand in his March 5, 2012, e-mail to the City Manager. Any waiver of a right to bargain over a negotiable contracting out decision must be clear and unmistakable. Therefore, the union’s March 5, 2012, bargaining demand obviates a determination that the union waived its right to bargain by inaction. more or view all topics or full text.
403607/29/15
2433M Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
608.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
A hospital is not liable for failing to bargain over the implementation of a layoff where the union does not offer any concrete proposals on any negotiable subjects related to the layoffs. A union’s failure to provide alternative cost-saving measures is an appropriate factor in support of the conclusion that a hospital did not fail to bargain in good faith over the effects of a layoff. Negotiations over the effects of layoff may include the exclusive representative’s robust efforts to persuade the employer that layoffs can be avoided. Those efforts may include economic concessions, or other ideas for cost-savings, or the presentation of facts that demonstrate the layoff is not necessary or need not be as deep as management proposes. However, if an exclusive representative expects to successfully establish that an employer failed to negotiate in good faith over the effects and implementation of layoffs, the exclusive representative must participate in the give-and-take of negotiable proposals, i.e., the effects and implementation of the layoff. The union cannot monopolize negotiations with its insistence on negotiating over a non-negotiable managerial decision, i.e., the decision to lay off, and hope to delay or prevent the implementation of those layoffs by charging the employer with bad faith bargaining. An exclusive representative faced with impending layoffs of unit members may choose not to offer economic concessions in trade for fewer layoffs. But where a layoff is undertaken to reduce labor costs, a union cannot claim that the employer refused to bargain over the number of employees to be laid off when the union offers no concessions of sufficient value to the employer to obviate the need for layoffs. A union may not challenge an employer for failing to combine negotiations for a successor memorandum of agreement with layoff effects negotiations, when the union fails to respond to an invitation to open successor negotiations until after the layoff occurs. Hospital’s failure to provide the names of employees to be laid off is excused when, despite the hospital’s attempt to submit the issue to negotiations, the union declines to discuss the order of layoff, because it desires to drill deeper into the numbers justifying the hospital’s decision to lay off. Hospital’s announcement that it will proceed by reverse seniority is excused when the union fails to give the hospital a counterproposal identifying a different number for the layoffs or a different configuration for the proposed reduction. more or view all topics or full text.
40406/15/15
2120M County of Santa Clara
608.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
“Self-help” during negotiations regarding matters within scope is unlawful. Instead, when a party believes its counterpart is not conducting its negotiations in good faith, the party may file an unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text.
3410906/25/10
2114M County of Santa Clara
608.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
“Self-help” during negotiations regarding matters within scope is unlawful. Instead, when a party believes its counterpart is not conducting its negotiations in good faith, the party may file an unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text.
349706/08/10
1235S State of California (Board of Equalization)
608.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
Exclusive representative sought to have negotiations referred to the main bargaining table; although exclusive representative has the right negotiate the effects of proposed changes on matters within the scope of representation, upon request, it may not dictate the setting in which such negotiations must occur; p. 3 . more or view all topics or full text.
222901811/24/97
1227S State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration and Transportation)
608.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
The employer may defend its failure to provide information by showing the request that is unduly burdensome or the requested information does not exist employer need not furnish information in a form more organized than its own records; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text.
222900711/05/97
0642E Palo Verde Unified School District
608.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
"Self-help" during negotiations via unilateral imposition of a six- percent salary increase in response to a threatened strike violates EERA section 3543.5(c) and, derivatively, (a) and (b). In the event of an actual strike, the remedy for the other party may be a request to the Board for injunctive relief. more or view all topics or full text.
121900812/15/87
2485E Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District
608.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
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.
412306/30/16
0357E Calexico Unified School District
608.2000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
Union's rejection of settlement proposal accepted by another unit not relevant to employer's unilateral freeze of step and column increases. more or view all topics or full text.
71429111/22/83