All notes for Subtopic 608.02000 – Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or Misconduct
|Decision||Description||PERC Vol.||PERC Index||Date|
County of Orange|
608.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or MisconductThough 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.
City of Milpitas|
608.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or MisconductThe 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.
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System|
608.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Union Bad Faith, Delay, Unreasonable or Unlawful Demands, Violence or MisconductA 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.
County of Santa Clara||34||109||06/25/10|
County of Santa Clara||34||97||06/08/10|
State of California (Board of Equalization)||22||29018||11/24/97|
State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration and Transportation)||22||29007||11/05/97|
Palo Verde Unified School District||12||19008||12/15/87|
Petaluma City Elementary School District/Joint Union High School District||41||23||06/30/16|
Calexico Unified School District||7||14291||11/22/83|