All notes for Subtopic 800.03000 – Negotiations

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2575M Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Charging Parties alleged that their exclusive representative had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) inducing Charging Parties to continue working misclassified overtime hours with false assurances that they would be fully compensated for all overtime hours worked if the organization prevailed in its grievance against the employer; (2) urging an arbitrator to award all employees an equal lump sum payment to remedy the grievance and capping the employer’s total liability, rather than awarding full back pay only to those employees who actually worked the misclassified hours; and, (3) failing to provide notice and opportunity for input and/or misleading Charging Parties regarding the status of settlement negotiations and the terms of an arbitrator’s opinion and award, despite requests by Charging Parties for such information. The Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge for lack of jurisdiction over the arbitrator, lack of ripeness for review, and/or failure to state a prima facie case of an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text.
432206/28/18
2575M Service Employees International Union Local 521 (Garcia)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
The Board denied an appeal and adopted the dismissal of an unfair practice charging alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arising from damages allegedly suffered as the result of an arbitrator’s opinion and award in a grievance brought by the exclusive representative on Charging Parties’ behalf. An arbitrator is not a proper respondent in an unfair practice and therefore PERB had no authority to review the arbitrator’s opinion and award to determine if its provisions constituted an unfair labor practice. Additionally, the facts, as alleged in the charge, demonstrated that Charging Parties had notice and opportunity to give their input before their representative entered into a tentative agreement to settle the dispute and that, because the tentative settlement agreement was never finalized, any harm suffered by Charging Parties was not attributable to the representative’s acts or omissions. more or view all topics or full text.
432206/28/18
2475E United Teachers of Los Angeles (Raines, et al)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
The representative has broad discretion to negotiate and modify collectively-bargained terms and conditions of employment but exclusively-represented employees are entitled to notice and some opportunity for input before the representative modifies collectively-bargained rights, so that employees may act to protect their interests. PERB does not require a contract ratification vote or prescribe the particular form of access for employees to communicate their views but the exclusive representative violates the duty of fair representation where it provides no notice of a modification of the collective bargaining agreement and conceals from employees a side letter that substantially affects employee seniority rights. Because “waiver” generally denotes a voluntary relinquishment of a known right, there can be no waiver where there is no actual or constructive notice that a right is being relinquished. Employees cannot have acquiesced or waived their right to give input on a change in their collectively-bargained seniority rights or priority order when they neither knew nor reasonably should have known that the representative was considering modifying seniority or priority rights. more or view all topics or full text.
4014702/29/16
2256E Barstow College Faculty Association (Cauble)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
As a general rule, an exclusive representative enjoys a wide range of bargaining latitude; the duty of fair representation does not mean an employee organization is barred from making an agreement which may have an unfavorable effect on some members, nor is an employee organization obligated to bargain a particular item benefiting certain unit members; where charge alleged that charging party was not given proper notice of an item up for vote on an issue concerning the evaluation of faculty members, that the exclusive representative did not follow its rules relating to quorum and that he was not provided with an opportunity to vote, charge failed to establish that the union’s bargaining conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or lacking in good faith. more or view all topics or full text.
3616704/25/12
2223E Baldwin Park Education Association (Hayek, et al.)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
A union’s duty of fair representation requires it to refrain from representing its members arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith; although the duty of fair representation includes a union’s negotiating conduct, as a general rule, an exclusive representative enjoys a wide range of bargaining latitude; the mere fact that an agreement reached by an exclusive representative has an unfavorable effect on some members is not sufficient to demonstrate a violation; the question is whether the exclusive representative exercised its discretion in good faith and with honesty of purpose; where charging party alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation when it negotiated for a composite rate based health care design that places a disproportionate burden on members who are single, such factual allegations do not establish a prima facie violation. more or view all topics or full text.
369011/30/11
2274E Fillmore Unified Teachers Association (Hood)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Charge failed to demonstrate that unfavorable effects resulting from contract ratification election and resulting contract (charging party being given two classes he had not previously taught, not being afforded the right to transfer, and stress that led him to retire early for health reasons) demonstrate the union’s election or the contract it agreed to with the employer had a “substantial impact” on charging party’s employment relationship with his employer. Without allegations demonstrating substantial impact on charging party’s relationship with the employer, that conduct without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment, or that charging party was denied opportunity to communicate his views to the union, allegations fail to establish a prima facie case of breach of the duty of fair representation. more or view all topics or full text.
06/22/12
2116H California Faculty Association (Williams)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Unfair practice charge against union for failure to allow non-members to cast a vote to determine support for a proposed two-day-a-month furlough program was dismissed. A union may exclude non-members from voting as long as the union provides the employees some opportunity to communicate their views. PERB will not interfere with matters of internal union affairs where there was no showing of a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship so as to give rise to the duty of fair representation. more or view all topics or full text.
3410106/14/10
2117H California Faculty Association (Halcoussis)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Unfair practice charge against union for failure to allow non-members to cast a vote to determine support for a proposed two-day-a-month furlough program was dismissed. A union may exclude non-members from voting as long as the union provides the employees some opportunity to communicate their views. PERB will not interfere with matters of internal union affairs where there was no showing of a substantial impact on the employer-employee relationship so as to give rise to the duty of fair representation. more or view all topics or full text.
3410006/14/10
2098M Stationary Engineers Local 39
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
The charge does not establish that the union’s failure to inform charging party of its bargaining decision, provide union election and grievance procedures to its members, or call a meeting of the union’s general membership, has a substantial impact on the employee-employer relationship. Charging party and other employees had the opportunity to share their views with the union regarding bargaining proposals. While the union did not agree with some of the employees’ views, no facts establish that the union’s bargaining position was arbitrary, without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment. more or view all topics or full text.
345202/24/10
2087E Santa Ana Educators Association (O'Neil, et al.)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
In order to state a prima facie breach of the duty of fair representation by misrepresentation of facts to secure contract ratification, the charging party must show that: (1) the exclusive representative made an untrue assertion of fact (or conduct equivalent to an untrue assertion of fact); (2) the exclusive representative’s assertion was made with knowledge of its falsity; (3) the exclusive representative’s assertion was made to secure ratification of a contract; and (4) the fact misrepresented must have a substantial impact on the relationships of the unit members to their employer. However, “[a] breach of the duty will not be found where the exclusive representative is guilty of ‘mere negligence or poor judgment’.” Applying this standard, the charge failed to establish that the following statements constituted unlawful misrepresentations of fact made by a teachers’ union to its members in order to secure contract ratification: (1) that saving class size reduction depended on contract ratification; (2) that the school district faced a state takeover in lieu of bankruptcy; (3) that the collective bargaining agreement would be nullified in the event of a state takeover; (4) that there was no alternative to bailing out the District for $29 million; (5) that the District had a $15 million debt that needed to be repaid immediately; and (6) that the cost-of-living increase resulting from a ballot initiative had already been incorporated into the District’s budget projections. In addition, charge failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that union’s decision to agree to a contract with a four percent salary cut was without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment so as to violate the duty of fair representation. more or view all topics or full text.
343112/30/09
1846S Union of American Physicians and Dentists (Meenakshi, et al.)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
The failure to negotiate is impermissible only when it is founded on the duty or obligation to do so. The union’s refusal to adopt a bargaining stance that could result in greater gains for a particular classification does not establish that the union breached its duty of fair representation. more or view all topics or full text.
3013005/24/06
1834E Kern High Faculty Association, CTA/NEA (Maaskant)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
It is not a violation for a union to withhold information as long as there are notice and an opportunity to be heard before a collective bargaining agreement becomes final. A union violates its duty if it excludes non-members from voting only if the non-members are left completely uninformed about the status of negotiations or if they are not provided an opportunity to express their viewpoints. (Fontana Teachers Association (1984) PERB Decision No. 416.) A union may exclude non-members from voting as long as the union provides them with an opportunity to communicate their views. (El Centro Elementary Teachers Association (1982) PERB Decision No. 232.) Fee payer non-member who learned of ratification meeting through a friend cannot claim no notice of the meeting because he wasn’t officially notified. more or view all topics or full text.
3010704/10/06
1569E Orange Unified Education Association and California Teachers Association (Rossmann, et al.)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Duty of fair representation does not bar union from making an agreement which may have an unfavorable effect on some members. Thus, allegation that not all unit members received the same salary increase does not establish a violation. more or view all topics or full text.
283512/18/03
1610M Service Employees International Union Local 250 (Stewart)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Mere fact that some bargaining unit members are not satisfied with a collective bargaining agreement is insufficient by itself to demonstrate a prima facie violation. more or view all topics or full text.
2812504/02/04
1401E Riverside County Office Teachers Association (Mc Alpine, et al.)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
A conclusion that the Association acted without rational basis which does not set forth facts from which it becomes apparent how or in what manner the Association acted without rational basis is insufficient to state a prima facie case; p. 4, warning letter. The mere fact that charging parties were not satisfied with the agreement is insufficient to demonstrate a prima facie violation. The fact that the Association should have known the charging parties would be dissatisfied is also insufficient to demonstrate a breach of the duty of fair representation. The Association is not obligated to negotiate a specific provision for a group of unit members, nor did the Association fail to explain its rationale in reducing the amount the charging parties received. Nothing in the charge indicates the Association acted without rational basis; p. 5, warning letter. Allegation that the Association disparately treated charging parties by reducing their stipend while increasing the salaries of other teachers failed to explain how this violated the duty of fair representation. Association's conduct in making an agreement that favors some employees more than others does not violate the EERA; pp. 2-3, dismissal letter. It was unclear how a provision in the agreement which set up an advisory committee whose goal was to recommend salary adjustments violated the EERA, or demonstrated bad faith on the part of the Association. Even assuming the provision somehow extended the duration of the agreement beyond three years, the Association's failure to publicly notice this clause was not properly adjudicated as an unfair practice charge. As such, the allegation failed to demonstrate the Association breached its duty of fair representation; pp. 3-4 dismissal letter. Charging Parties lacked standing to allege that the District's proposal was a regressive proposal, or that the Association caused the District to engage in regressive bargaining, and allegation was dismissed. Moreover, the charge failed to provide any facts demonstrating the District violated the Act or that the Association caused the District to violate the Act. As such, the charge fails to state a prima facie violation; p. 4, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text.
243114408/31/00
1385E Corona-Norco Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Rumrill)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
The Association is not required or expected to satisfy all members of the bargaining unit it represents, and the duty of fair representation does not mean that the Association is barred from making contracts which may have unfavorable effects on some of the members. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents. Association failed to contact all employees affected by a potential contract change for a meeting to discuss the change. However, it sought to correct the problem by getting an accurate list from the District. Association's failure to gain the benefit for some employees, provide requested minutes and answer several questions do not demonstrate retaliation, or a DFR. more or view all topics or full text.
243109705/11/00
1533E Orange Unified Education Association and California Teachers Association (Rossman)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Union did not violate duty of fair representation by agreeing to bargain over retirement benefits for current employees since such benefits are a permissive subject of bargaining. Mere fact that employee was not satisfied with the contract provision negotiated by union does not establish a breach of the duty of fair representation. The Board has held that an exclusive representative is not expected or required to satisfy all members of the unit it represents. Moreover, the duty of fair representation does not mean an employee organization is barred from making an agreement which may have an unfavorable effect on some members, nor is an employee organization obligated to bargain a particular item benefiting certain unit members. more or view all topics or full text.
279306/23/03
1322E San Juan Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Himes, et al.)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Charging Parties learned of the negotiated changes affecting them prior to contract ratification and several resource teachers met with Association representatives and expressed their concerns with the proposed contract terms. The Association responded that negotiations were complete and that further input was not permitted. The Association held two informational meetings prior to the ratification vote. Under the rule in Oxnard, the opportunity to comment at the informational meetings and vote against ratification of the contract is sufficient to meet the duty of fair representation. A union's failure to provide adequate information concerning a tentative agreement during ratification proceedings is not deemed a violation of the duty of fair representation. While a union's intentional misrepresentation of fact in order to ensure contract ratification would demonstrate bad faith, the charge While a union's intentional misrepresentation of fact in order to ensure contract ratification would demonstrate bad faith, the charge fails to state a prima facie violation of the duty of fair representation and must be dismissed. more or view all topics or full text.
233009304/08/99
1133E Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Deglow)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
The exclusive representative is not obligated to bargain a particular item benefitting certain unit members; p. 19, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
202702901/19/96
1108E California School Employees Association (Chacon)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
The duty of fair representation imposed on the exclusive representative extends to grievance handling and negotiations; p. 3, warning letter. An exclusive representative is not expected or required to satisfy all members of the unit it represents, and the duty of fair representation does not mean that an exclusive representative is barred from making contracts which may have unfavorable effects on some members; p. 3, warning letter. Even poor judgment on the union's part would not be enough to establish a violation of its duty of fair representation; p. 4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
192610205/25/95
1097E California School Employees Association (Marquez)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Determination not to seek ratification must be arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith to establish a DFR violation. more or view all topics or full text.
192608805/03/95
1021S California Association of Highway Patrolmen (Burks)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
The duty of fair representation extends to negotiations, but it does not establish an obligation to negotiate as to any specific subject; p. 1, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
172417210/22/93
0889E Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, California Federation of Teachers/American Federation of Teachers (Violett)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Exclusive representative not obligated to bargain a particular item benefiting certain unit members. more or view all topics or full text.
152210706/19/91
0877E Los Rios Community College District
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
DFR applies to exclusive representative's conduct in negotiations; however, exclusive representative not required to bargain a particular subject benefiting certain unit members in negotiations; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text.
152208305/16/91
0681E Oxnard Educators Association (Gorcy and Tripp)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Notice of bargaining proposal need not be in a particular manner or form, need not be given every time there is a new proposal or counter, but the opportunity for members to be heard should be before the agreement becomes final and binding. more or view all topics or full text.
121910306/20/88
0664E Oxnard Educators Association (Gorcey and Tripp)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Prima facie case alleged where union knowingly negotiated away part of unit's rights under Education Code section 45028, which governs salaries of certificated employees. more or view all topics or full text.
121906705/05/88
0422E Mt. Diablo Education Association (De Frates)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Union-negotiated contractual revision that changed method of calculating seniority not a violation of duty. Under new method, seniority date for employees with break in service was date of rehire. Under old method, seniority date for some employees with break in service was date of first hire. Despite allegation that Charging Party was adversely affected, there was no allegation that contractual change was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, and rational basis for position apparent from face of complaint. R.A. dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text.
81520310/24/84
0428E Sacramento City Teachers Association (Fanning, et al.)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
No prima facie case allegation that exclusive representative refused to propose contractual changes to eliminate wage inequity of concern to charging party. Exclusive rep's refusal was due to conclusion that wage inequity was being phased out and that negotiation about the issue presented potentially negative implications for other bargaining unit members. No allegations to indicate exclusive representative's decision was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. R.A. dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text.
81521211/06/84
0332E Reed District Teachers Association (Reyes)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Contract limiting exclusive representative right to process grievances to those where employee specifically requests such, in writing, is not an absolute obligation to file and represent individuals where requested. more or view all topics or full text.
71422408/15/83
0232E El Centro Elementary Teachers Association (Willis and Mills-Willis)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Exclusive representative does not breach the duty of fair representa- tion by excluding non-members from contract ratification vote, as long as the union provides some access to non-members to communicate their views. more or view all topics or full text.
61318608/11/82
0149E Castro Valley Unified School District (McElwain and Lyen)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Union agreement to transfer policy under which teachers would "follow their students" in school consolidation did not violate DFR. Even though some teachers with high seniority did not select their choice of assignments, the union decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. The union had rational basis in choosing policy because it resulted in less disruption. more or view all topics or full text.
51200612/17/80
1005S California State Employees Association (Roberts)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
A prima facie case was not stated in the allegation that the union violated section 3519.5(b) by conducting bargaining in a way that adversely affected bargaining unit members; p. 2; a union is allowed substantial leeway for developing negotiating strategy and final contract ratification; it is not required to justify every decision at the bargaining table. more or view all topics or full text.
172411806/25/93
0979S California State Employees Association (Hackett, et al.)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
A prima facie case was not stated in the allegation that the union violated section 3519.5(b) by mailing out the last, best and final offer from the State to rank and file members of the Unit without the approval of the Unit 1 Bargaining Unit Committee (BUNC).) more or view all topics or full text.
172405303/10/93
0124E Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (Romero)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
To prove a breach of the DFR, charging party must show that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith; allegations of arbitrary conduct must, at minimum, show that the union's action or or inaction was without a rational basis or devoid of honest judgment and no such facts were alleged in this charge; DFR does not require that exclusive representative negotiate specific items; pp. 6-8. more or view all topics or full text.
41105503/26/80
0072E Redlands Teachers Association (Faeth and McCarty)
800.3000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION; Negotiations
Association's bargaining conduct, including its refusal to go to impasse over a psychologist pay proposal, within the discretion accorded exclusive reps.; p. 5, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
2220009/25/78