All notes for Subtopic 804.01000 – In General
Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
2745M | County of Sacramento 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 39 | 09/18/20 |
2745M | County of Sacramento 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 39 | 09/18/20 |
2609I | San Francisco County Superior Court and Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General The unilateral change test is equally applicable to unilateral repudiations by an employer or by an employee organization. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 99 | 12/18/18 |
2290E | Inglewood Unified School District 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General Charge failed to allege a prima facie violation of the duty to bargain over reopener proposal, where contractual zipper clause barred negotiations unless one of two exceptions applied and employer failed to reopen agreement in a timely fashion. Document entitled “Proposal for a Side Letter Agreement” submitted in context of meetings over fiscal crisis did not constitute a valid demand to bargain, did not create a bargaining obligation, and did not constitute timely reopener demand, and untimely bargaining request did not “relate back” to proposal. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 96 | 10/29/12 |
2105H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 ) 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General The same standard for evaluation of a unilateral change violation by an employer applies to evaluation of a unilateral change violation by a union. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 73 | 04/21/10 |
1899E | Service Employees International Union Local 99 (Gutierrez) 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General The employee organization is obligated to meet and confer with the public school employer in good faith. However, individual employees lack standing to allege that an employee organization has failed to bargain in good faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 90 | 04/16/07 |
1601S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General Prohibition against unilateral changes within the scope of representation apply to employee organizations. Union committee unfair practice by unilaterally changing its procedures for authorizing union leave. Board found that requiring union to negotiate over these procedures will not abridge union’s fundamental managerial prerogatives. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 87 | 02/24/04 |
1282E | Southwestern Community College District 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General Allegations of delay (refusal to schedule bargaining during finals week or winter break) do not rise to level of per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith and are analyzed under the "totality of the circumstances" test; p. 1 and 2, dismissal letter. Ground rules for negotiation, including the time and place of negotiations, are within the scope of bargaining; p. 3, warning letter. Allegations that parties exchanged numerous proposals regarding the time and place of bargaining and that union precipitously cancelled one bargaining session are insufficient to demonstrate violation of the duty to bargain in good faith; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29153 | 09/03/98 |
1265E | Kern High School District 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General Association bargaining team members agreed to a tentative agreement and to take it to their principals to secure ratification. When nearly half of the team members' actively campaigned against ratification of the agreement, the process was sufficiently undermined to call into question the good faith bargaining of the Association and states a prima facie case of bad faith bargaining. (Alhambra City and High School Districts (1986) PERB Decision No. 560, p. 14; Placerville Union School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 69.); pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29094 | 05/27/98 |
1119H | University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General The standard generally applied to determine whether good faith negotiations have occurred is called the totality of conduct test. This test reviews the entire course of conduct during negotiations to determine whether the parties have negotiated in good faith with the requisite subjective intention of reaching an agreement; p. 3, warning letter. Neither the statute nor PERB case law establishes a timeline for negotiations. The pace of an individual set of negotiations is influenced by many factors, including the conduct of both parties to the negotiations; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26144 | 10/04/95 |
0900S | State of California, Department of Personnel Administration (Professional Engineers in California Government) 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General Insistence upon negotiations on a mandatory subject such as released time is not a per se violation of the duty to bargain. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22151 | 09/13/91 |
0728E | Compton Community College District 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General A representative from one unit monitoring the salary negotiations of another unit is not coalition bargaining where there is no other evidence the units were trying to merge or obtain the same contract; pp. 3-6. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20076 | 04/04/89 |
0581E | Antioch Unified School District 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General Layoff proposals arising during ongoing contract negotiations for new contract is not an initial proposal requiring "sunshining," therefore, employer's failure to sunshine did not excuse union requiring refusal to bargain. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17137 | 06/30/86 |
0984H | American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Alvarez) 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General Charging party lacked standing to assert a violation of the exclusive representative's duty to bargain in good faith; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24064 | 03/23/93 |
0922H | Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers) 804.01000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; In General Rules for evaluating alleged unilateral changes by unions are the same as rules for evaluating alleged unilateral changes by employers; pp. 17-18. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23033 | 02/07/92 |