All notes for Subtopic 608.06000 – Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2799M | County of Santa Clara 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative PERB found that although County ordinance’s definition of surveillance technology could affect discipline, the definition was not subject to decision bargaining. The surveillance technology definition was not fundamentally about employment-related matters; rather it was primarily aimed at privacy and community safety, while its employment impacts were clearly secondary. The surveillance technology definition is more akin to use-of-force policies, implementing a racial profiling study, or requiring officers to wear body-worn cameras. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 94 | 12/20/21 |
| 2799M | County of Santa Clara 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Applying the test articulated in International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 272-273 (Richmond Firefighters), PERB determined that the definition of surveillance technology falls within the third category of decisions in the Richmond Firefighters framework because it does not primarily concern the employment relationship but does impact that relationship—especially since County employees are by far the main persons who are at risk of violating the Ordinance. PERB found that the balancing test for decisions in this third category weighs in favor of the County’s need for unencumbered decision-making. (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 18, quoting Richmond Firefighters, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 273.) PERB reached this conclusion, in part, because the surveillance technology definition is premised on two important government aims—protecting individual privacy and promoting public safety— which have little to do with employment. PERB found comparatively little benefit to requiring decision bargaining over the surveillance technology definition. more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 94 | 12/20/21 |
| 2783H | Regents of the University of California 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Because the University relied on the management rights clause in its contracts with Charging Parties when making the decision to require influenza vaccinations, employees could be subject to similar vaccination mandates in the future. (p. 21.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 38 | 07/26/21 |
| 2772M | County of Sonoma * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M * * * 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative There are three distinct categories of managerial decisions, each with its own implications for the scope of representation. Regarding the third category, decisions that affect employment conditions but are not concerned primarily with employment, the Board must balance the benefits of bargaining over the decision against the employer’s managerial interest in making the decision. Aspects of a ballot measure that directly affect employment (e.g., investigating and disciplining employees) tend to fall on the negotiable side, unlike measures that relate primarily to public safety. Thus, decision bargaining is required for those amendments. (pp. 36-44.)The Board’s holding in County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2657-M, that some management decisions “expanding law enforcement oversight” are outside the scope of representation, cannot exclude all decisions related to law enforcement oversight. Applying the balancing test, the Board concluded that only the ballot measure amendments on investigating employees and recommending discipline are within the scope of representation. (pp. 43-44.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 8 | 06/23/21 |
| 2680M | County of Santa Clara 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Employer was not required to bargain over its decision to staff a particular shift with a non-bargaining unit peace officer because its legitimate concern for employee and public safety outweighed the benefits of bargaining in that instance. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 86 | 10/31/19 |
| 2680M | County of Santa Clara 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative The Board has adopted the framework from International Association of Firefighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, for determining whether a managerial decision is subject to a meet and confer obligation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. There, the court concluded that a balancing test applies only to employer decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but also involve “‘a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise’ or, in other words, the employer’s ‘retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment.’” (pp. 9-10.) With such decisions, bargaining would be required only if the benefit for labor-management relations and the collective bargaining process outweighs the burden placed on the employer. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 86 | 10/31/19 |
| 2611M | County of Orange 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Release time policies are not a fundamental managerial prerogative. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 101 | 12/19/18 |
| 2544E | Bellflower Unified School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative 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 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative 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 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative 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 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative 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 |
| 2433M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative The decision to lay off is non-negotiable because it is within the employer’s managerial prerogatives. However, the effects of the layoff are negotiable. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 4 | 06/15/15 |
| 2398H | Regents of the University of California 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative The employer’s academic freedom does not permit it to ignore MOU terms regarding classification of bargaining unit members. The Board’s decision does not encroach on the UC’s exercise of its managerial discretion regarding whom to hire into its ranks of instructors. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 64 | 11/17/14 |
| 2298M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Under the MMBA, a decision to lay off employees is generally managerial prerogative as to which the employer has no duty to meet and confer with the employees’ union over the decision itself. The MMBA imposes on employers a duty to meet and confer regarding matters within the scope of representation, which does not include managerial decisions such as a decision to lay off employees. Thus, the MMBA imposes a duty to meet and confer over the implementation and the impacts and effects of a layoff decision, but not the decision itself. The obligation to maintain the status quo on matters within the scope of representation following certification of a successor organization, attaches only to those matters which are mandatory subjects. Including an agreement on a non-mandatory subject within a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) does not convert the non-mandatory subject into a mandatory subject. Nor does an agreement regarding a non-mandatory subject become part of the “status quo” which an employer must maintain while meeting and conferring for a successor MOU. Where an employer believes a matter to be outside the scope of mandatory meeting and conferring, it is obliged to explore the matter in meet and confer discussions. Thereupon, the employer may change its position and meet and confer on the matter, or it may continue to assert its prior position and decline to meet and confer. In the latter case, if the employer is incorrect, its refusal to meet and confer is unlawful. It is undisputed that the hospital’s layoff decision was driven by labor cost considerations. Thus, the implementation (timing of the layoff, and the number and identity of employees to be laid off) and the impact and effects on remaining employees, including workload and safety, were mandatory subjects for meeting and conferring prior to the implementation of the layoff. (City of Richmond (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259.) The hospital’s refusal to meet and confer, at least on safety and workload issues, was absolute and thus unlawful. (City of Richmond (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259; Sierra Joint Community College District (1981) PERB Decision No. 179.) more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 137 | 12/20/12 |
| 2296M | City of Long Beach 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Decision to furlough employees was not a fundamental management decision over which city was not obligated to bargain, where is clear that city viewed the matter to be within the scope of representation and decision was not aimed at affecting the quality, nature or level of service to the public, but rather to save money by reducing employee wages. General language authorizing city to determine the size and composition of its workforce and to assign work does not clearly and unmistakably waive union’s right to bargain over the reduction in wages and hours imposed by the implementation of furloughs. Ratification of temporary furlough plan by city council did not authorize unilateral implementation of furloughs, since nothing in the MMBA vests ultimate authority with local governing bodies to use their legislative authority, through the budget approval process, to relieve covered employers from their bargaining obligations. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 130 | 12/04/12 |
| 2139M | City of Alhambra * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2663-M and County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, where the Board overruled the decision’s interpretation of the scope of representation test, and County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2663-M, where the Board overruled the remainder of the decision as to its specific application of the scope of representation test to promotional opportunities, including procedures. * * *The determination of minimum qualifications for the position of fire captain has an effect on public services and is a fundamental managerial or policy decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 160 | 10/26/10 |
| 2112I | Los Angeles Superior Court 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative 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. No unilateral change violation where employer’s actions were consistent with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Where the union alleged that the employer unilaterally changed procedures for filling regular full-time assignments, the Board agent appropriately harmonized provisions of the CBA regarding the application of seniority and the employer’s authority to determine the number of employees in any status. When interpreting a CBA each provision must be read in conjunction with those around it and harmonized as a whole, so as to not leave any of the terms without meaning. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 94 | 06/07/10 |
| 2103M | City of San Diego (Office of the City Attorney) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative A City Charter section providing that the city attorney is the “chief legal advisor of, and attorney for the City and all Departments and offices thereof in matters relating to their official powers and duties,” does not provide the city attorney authority to disregard state labor statutes. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 63 | 03/26/10 |
| 1960M | South Placer Fire Protection District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative General management rights language in Employer-Employee Relations Resolution did not give the District the right to unilaterally remove the Fire Marshall classification from the bargaining unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 96 | 06/10/08 |
| 1967S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative 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 |
| 1942C | Fresno County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M. * * *Court’s requirement that newly hired court reporters sign an agreement to provide Realtime reporting services, which was added to the job description, was not an unlawful unilateral change, but rather an assignment of work which falls within the Court’s management prerogative under City & County of San Francisco (2004) PERB Decision No. 1608-M (San Francisco). PERB’s holding in San Francisco under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act applies equally to the Trial Court Act given that they have the same “scope of representation” provisions. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 38 | 01/31/08 |
| 1895E | Newark Unified School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative The Association's proposal regarding the make up and dissemination of the STAR results is not negotiable and impinged upon managerial rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 78 | 03/27/07 |
| 1501E | Los Angeles Unified School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Any waiver of an exclusive representative’s right to bargain must be “clear and unmistakable.” Management-Rights clause in contract was ambiguous, and therefore, cannot constitute a “clear and unmistakable” waiver. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 4 | 10/31/02 |
| 1402E | Antelope Valley Union High School District * * * OVERRULED by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525, 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. * * *District’s decision to phase out full time position at a particular school represents a legitimate change in the nature, direction or level of service and is non-negotiable based on several factors: (1) the decision was made well before its decision to create and fill part-time positions at that school; (2) the decision is consistent with the District’s past practice; viz. a pattern of several years’ duration of leaving full-time food service positions vacant when the incumbent retired; (3) the District made the decision not to fill the full-time position at Quartz Hill independently of its decision to add a pizza machine and staff it appropriately; and (4) the decision to add the part-time positions was made in order to implement the District’s non-negotiable decision to provide a different type of service to patrons by opening a pizza parlor; due to the operating requirements of the pizza machine, a particular staffing configuration was needed in order to appropriately serve customers. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31145 | 09/05/00 |
| 1391S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Changes which merely transfer existing functions and duties from one classification to another involve no overriding management prerogative. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31112 | 06/26/00 |
| 1392S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Changes which merely transfer existing functions and duties from one classification to another involve no overriding management prerogative. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31113 | 06/26/00 |
| 1390S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Changes which merely transfer existing functions and duties from one classification to another involve no overriding management prerogative. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31111 | 06/26/00 |
| 1287E | Antelope Valley Union High School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Broadly worded contract clause concerning selection and promotion of employees allows district to change its promotional interview policy. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29168 | 09/25/98 |
| 1206E | San Ysidro School District (California School Employees Association and Its San Ysidro Chapter #154)) 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative District's contractual right to classify, reclassify and abolish positions does not include right to modify the number of hours in a vacant position based on labor cost considerations: waiver of union's right to meet and confer must be clear and unmistakable; p. 8, proposed dec. Education Code provisions which give District authority to create positions and assign employees to those positions does not encompass the right to reduce the number of hours in a vacant position based on labor cost considerations; p. 9, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28122 | 06/23/97 |
| 1163E | Arcata Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative * * * 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. * * *An employer's decision to change the hours in a vacant position that reflects a change in the nature, direction or level of service falls within the management prerogative and is outside the scope of representation. Conversely, an employer decision based on labor cost considerations that does not reflect a change in the nature, direction or level of service is directly related to issues of employee wages and hours and is within the scope of representation; p. 8. The District's decision to change the hours of a vacant, full-time position into two 3-3/4 hour positions was within the scope of representation. Since the unusual 3-3/4 hour time base fell below the 4 hours per day required to qualify for the employer's benefit package and the two new part-time employees performed the same work previously performed by the full-time employee, the District's decision was not an exercise of the management prerogative reflecting a change in the performed by the full-time employee, the District's decision was not an exercise of the management prerogative reflecting a change in the nature, direction or level of service. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27120 | 06/26/96 |
| 1138E | Barstow Unified School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Under the terms of a broad management rights clause "the employer may not be required to bargain about some changes upon which, in the absence of such clause, he might otherwise be compelled to bargain"; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27044 | 02/20/96 |
| 1106E | Moreno Valley Unified School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Staffing pattern determinations are managerial prerogatives, not subject to negotiations. Such determinations, however, do not include changes of the shifts of individual employees once the initial assignment has been made by the employer. The right to set staffing patterns is not a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to negotiate shift changes; p. 10, proposed dec. The right to "assign" employees does not carry with it the inherent right to change a shift assignment after it has been made; p. 11, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26099 | 05/19/95 |
| 1090E | Norris School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative A generally-worded management rights clause will not be construed as a waiver of statutory bargaining rights; p. 19, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26068 | 03/16/95 |
| 1078E | San Jacinto Unified School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative The contract terms "times and hours of operations" are not necessarily synonymous with the employees' starting and ending times, i.e., the work schedule of individual employees; p. 23, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26036 | 12/22/94 |
| 1067S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (Association of California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges and Professional Engineers in California Government; California State Employees' Association; California Department of Forestry Employees' Association, Local 2881, International Association of Fire Fighters) 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative The Governor does not fail to meet and confer in good faith through the act of submitting a budget to the Legislature prior to meeting and conferring with State employee unions. The submission of a proposed budget is not a matter for negotiations, but is instead the performance of a constitutionally imposed duty; p. 10, proposed dec. The Governor does not fail to meet and confer in good faith by preparing a State budget prior to negotiations with State employee unions. The Governor's initial determination on State employee pay and benefits may be made for budgetary purposes prior to negotiations; p. 11, proposed dec. No per se violation can be found in the Governor's pre-negotiations discussions with members of the Legislature about specific negotiable matters. Evidence of such discussions might, under some circumstance, be appropriate to evaluate under the totality of the circumstances; matters. Evidence of such discussions might, under some circumstance, be appropriate to evaluate under the totality of the circumstances; more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26010 | 11/09/94 |
| 0955E | Eureka City School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Establishment of a smoking policy is a management prerogative constituting a direct response to the Legislature's mandate; p. 13. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23168 | 10/27/92 |
| 0911E | Cloverdale Unified School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative District unilaterally modified fourth and fifth grade teachers' work day schedule by eliminating 45 minute preparation period, increasing teachers' instructional day by a corresponding 45 minutes, and adding two new subjects to the basic teaching assignment. "Employers are generally free to alter the instructional schedule without prior notification . . . ." However, when changes affect the length of the working day or existing duty-free time, the subject is negotiable . . . ." Imperial Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 825; p. 16. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22179 | 11/20/91 |
| 0868E | Whisman Elementary School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Public school employers maintain managerial prerogative to determine what curriculum and programs will be offered within their facilities; p. 19. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22043 | 02/14/91 |
| 0804E | Contra Costa Community College District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2017) PERB Decision No. 2518, pp. 41-42 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (2017) PERB Decision No. 2518, where the Board held that a broadly worded provision allowing the employer to adopt any policy not in conflict with the collective bargaining agreement does not waive the union’s right to bargain over a new policy within the scope of representation. * * *Union waived right to negotiate staff development by agreeing to a broad management rights/zipper clause which gave the employer the discretion to determine adoption and institution of all past, existing and future policies, procedures, etc., not embodied in contract; pp. 9-10. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21085 | 04/02/90 |
| 0750E | Riverside Unified School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Unilateral action to ban smoking inside a district's facilities is a matter of basic educational policy within the managerial prerogative of the district; p. 19. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20147 | 06/29/89 |
| 0640H | Regents of the University of California 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Decision to transfer courses to another department nonegotiable; effects, including transfer of lecturers, negotiable; not unlawful to implement those aspects of non-negotiable reorganization plan where no foreseeable negotiable effects of implemented aspects and where those aspects independent of aspects with negotiable effects. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19007 | 12/10/87 |
| 0624E | Inglewood Unified School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Key check-in/check-out system motivated by security concerns; employer has right to direct work of employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18114 | 06/23/87 |
| 0556E | Stanislaus County Department of Education 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Cessation of direct operation of migrant child education program a managerial prerogative and continuation of role as administrator did not constitute contracting out. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17039 | 12/31/85 |
| 1221H | Regents of the University of California (Lawrence Livermore) * * * OVERRULED IN PART BY The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * *Although the University's decision to reduce staffing in the Superblock was outside of the scope of representation, the University had an obligation to meet and negotiate over all reasonably foreseeable effects thereof; pp. 6-7. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28161 | 09/26/97 |
| 0503E | Oak Grove School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Where management had contractual right to transfer unit member with least seniority, when there is a tie, management can break tie based on its needs and criteria. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16122 | 04/23/85 |
| 0481E | Eureka City School District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Subject not rendered non-negotiable merely because motivation that prompted unilateral action tied to managerial prerogative. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16060 | 01/15/85 |
| 0334E | Mt. San Antonio Community College District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Management may assign duties not previously performed by unit persons to newly created position without bargaining. (Collective bargaining duties to newly created division chairpersons.) more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14226 | 08/18/83 |
| 1345E | Los Angeles Community College District 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative The Board has never held that an employer can change the hours in an occupied position without negotiating, even if the purpose is to change the nature, direction or level of service; p. 17, proposed dec., citing State of California (Employment Development Department) (1998) PERB Decision No. 1284-S. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30166 | 09/02/99 |
| 1353E | East Side Union High School District * * * OVERRULED by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Huntington Beach Union High School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1525 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. * * *The Arcata rule was not intended, and will be applied, to grant carte blanche authority to employers to change the hours of vacant bargaining unit positions unilaterally; p. 9. The employer may not unilaterally convert a vacant full-time, full-benefit position to multiple part-time, reduced-benefit positions at substantial labor cost savings and justify the action simply because the resulting part-time positions will provide a changed level of service; p. 10. Employer can adjust hours of a vacant position unilaterally if the changes are not primarily bases on wage and benefit cost considerations. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30174 | 09/30/99 |