All notes for Subtopic 608.15000 – Hard Bargaining
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2819E | Cerritos Community College District 608.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Hard Bargaining Under the totality of conduct test, a party is permitted to maintain a “hard bargaining” position on one or more issues, if the entire course of its bargaining conduct, both at the table and away from it, manifests good faith efforts toward reaching an overall agreement. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, pp. 7-8.) The ultimate question is whether the respondent’s conduct, when viewed in its totality, was sufficiently egregious to frustrate negotiations. (Id. at p. 7.) What the District did here was beyond the bounds of permissible hard bargaining, given its rigid stance on negotiability that effectively led to an early impasse on the Article 13 proposal, as well as its lack of substantive counterproposals and engagement at the bargaining table. (p. 40.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 168 | 05/06/22 |
| 2571M | City of San Ramon 608.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Hard Bargaining A party exhibits bad faith if it fails to adequately explain its inflexible position. (County of San Luis Obispo (2015) PERB Decision No. 2427-M, p. 29; San Bernardino City Unified School District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1270, at pp. 85-86.) However, an inflexible position that is fairly maintained and rationally supported does not, alone, prove bad faith. (Oakland Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 275, p. 16.) Hard bargaining cannot shield party from liability if it adopted a take-it-or-leave-it attitude or rushed to impasse. Employer adopted a “take-it-or-leave it” attitude when it (1) presented its position as an ultimatum, telling union it had a choice of either accepting new terms or arriving at impasse; (2) showed a predetermination to negotiate or impose its own proposals without carefully and mutually reviewing the union’s proposals, issues, and concessions; and (3) declared impasse based not on an assessment of the parties’ actual differences, but on the fact that it had not achieved capitulation to all of its demands. Furthermore, County of Solano (2014) PERB Decision No. 2402-M, is in tension with Regents of the University of California (1983) PERB Decision No. 356-H, p. 21, as it may be bad faith for employer to insist that it will not agree to different terms for different employee groups. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| 2461M | County of Tulare 608.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Hard Bargaining The County lawfully engaged in hard bargaining by consistently maintaining that it would not agree to economic terms that involved ongoing expenses, and it explained this reason to SEIU in negotiations. The County was open to other proposals to use the one-time funds other than a furlough suspension, but SEIU never presented a proposal that would use only one-time funds. Thus, SEIU failed to establish that the County unlawfully insisted on its initial position by taking a “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 81 | 10/30/15 |
| 2433M | Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System 608.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Hard Bargaining Simply because a hospital rejects a union’s proposal regarding implementation of a layoff, where the proposal does nothing to ultimately save labor costs, does not mean that it refused to negotiate or bargained in bad faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 4 | 06/15/15 |
| 2108S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 608.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Hard Bargaining Although a party may not merely go through the motions of bargaining, it may lawfully maintain an adamant position on any issue. Adamant insistence on a bargaining position is not necessarily refusal to bargain in good faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 82 | 05/10/10 |
| 2094H | Regents of the University of California * * * OVERRULED IN PART by amendment to HEERA section 3563.3, Stats. 2011, Ch. 539 608.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Hard Bargaining * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Stats. 2011, ch. 539 (S.B. 857), § 4. * * *Employer’s refusal to agree to employee organization’s proposal to incorporate state regulations setting minimum nurse-to-patient staffing ratios into collective bargaining agreement constituted “hard bargaining.” Employer’s position was supported by rational arguments and clearly communicated to union at the bargaining table. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 41 | 02/02/10 |
| 1954E | Berkeley Unified School District 608.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Hard Bargaining The Board found that the District did not engage in bad faith bargaining when it refused to agree to apply Education Code section 45210 and section 3543.1(c) of EERA to the president of the union. The Board held that it is not possible for an employee on leave under the Education Code to be released under EERA because the employee is already on leave. The District maintained a firm position regarding its released time proposal. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 73 | 04/21/08 |