All notes for Subtopic 804.02000 – Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000)
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2751M | City of San Gabriel 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) While “actively campaigning” against a tentative agreement may be another unlawful form of torpedoing, the level of dissenting bargaining team members’ active campaigning that would be sufficient to prove a union’s bad faith remains an unresolved issue. We need not address that question under the facts presented herein as there is no evidence that the Association engaged in any kind of conduct that undermined the negotiations process. (p. 29, fn. 23.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 64 | 12/14/20 |
| 2751M | City of San Gabriel 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Because bad faith bargaining allegations require assessment of the totality of conduct, the Board may also consider the charging party’s own conduct, regardless of whether the respondent has filed a countercharge. The City contends that the ALJ erred in concluding that it committed bad faith bargaining under the totality of conduct analysis because the ALJ failed to account for the Association’s own bad faith conduct. We disagree. Once the parties reach a tentative agreement, the duty of good faith implies that the negotiators will take the agreement to their respective principals in good faith. Negotiators have an obligation not to “torpedo” the proposed agreement or undermine the process that has occurred. If either party does not ratify the agreement, then the duty to bargain is revived. Torpedoing may take the form of repudiating an agreement, or making false statements about it. However, there is no evidence here suggesting such false statements or repudiation. The City argues that the ALJ ignored evidence that the Association failed to recommend the tentative agreement the parties reached at mediation, and instead torpedoed it during the ratification vote. While there is no dispute the parties reached a tentative agreement at the mediation, none of the evidence the City cites in support of its claim that the Association “indicated [to its membership] that the proposal should be voted down” persuades us that the Association’s representatives actually undermined ratification of the agreement. There is no evidence in the record that any Association agent actively campaigned against ratification of the agreement or repudiated it. Moreover, recommending a tentative agreement by the negotiations team is never a guarantee that the membership will ratify the proposal. We therefore do not find that any conduct by the Association excuses the City’s bad faith conduct. (pp. 28-30.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 64 | 12/14/20 |
| 2745M | County of Sacramento 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) 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 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) A party does not engage in regressive bargaining by withdrawing concessions on some subjects, while offering more favorable terms on other subjects, if the overall set of changes do not tend to frustrate an overall compromise—this will typically be true if aggregate movements toward the other party’s position are approximately equal, or greater than equal, to aggregate movements in a regressive direction. (See City of Palo Alto (2019) PERB Decision No. 2664-M, p. 6, fn. 5; Charter Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 873, pp. 17-18.) Proving net regressive conduct often requires some mathematical calculation (when the allegations mainly involve cost items) and requires a more nuanced argument when the allegations involve a mix of cost items and non-cost items. During the several weeks in which Union allegedly acted in a regressive manner, the parties traded multiple alternative packages, some including resolution of all litigation and some excluding such resolution. County did not meet its burden to show regressive conduct, viz., that Union made regressive new demands that were insufficiently offset by Union’s contemporaneous movements toward compromise. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) A party does not engage in regressive bargaining if it offers a sufficiently credible and rationally supported justification of changed circumstances that explain why it has made a proposal that ostensibly appears to move the parties further away from a resolution. (City of Palo Alto (2019) PERB Decision No. 2664-M, p. 6, fn. 5; City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 39.) There were credible and rational changed circumstances supporting Union’s decision to begin covering an additional bargaining unit in its proposals: two months into the negotiations, the County recognized Union as the exclusive representative of the additional bargaining unit. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2697M | County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Union did not commit a ground rule violation when a Union bargaining team member made a verbal proposal, where the ground rules did not prevent verbal presentations of hypothetical proposals, and permitted either a spokesperson or his or her designee to speak for the bargaining team. Union was not required to reduce its verbal proposal to writing in the short interval between floating the proposal and reaching an overall tentative agreement later that day. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 141 | 02/20/20 |
| 2609I | San Francisco County Superior Court and Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) 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 |
| 2609I | San Francisco County Superior Court and Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) No unilateral change found where the union’s conduct was consistent with a reading of the entire contract article on sympathy strikes. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 99 | 12/18/18 |
| 2427M | County of San Luis Obispo 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) When a party initially asserts that a negotiable matter is outside the scope of representation but then engages in actual bargaining there is no per se violation. If a party persists in its position that a negotiable matter is non-negotiable, then its conduct constitutes a violation of the duty to bargain. Although the unions stated that the employer’s proposal to change the prevailing wage formula was outside the scope of representation because it affected “vested rights,” unions did not fail or refuse to bargain because they nonetheless engaged in negotiations over the subject and offered other, legitimate reasons for their refusal to agree to employer’s proposal. Once a party has already explained its basis for its opposition to a proposal, it is unnecessary to continue to do so each time the same or similar terms are proposed. Because the unions had already adequately explained their desire to compare “apples to apples,” there was no need to respond to employer’s subsequent proposals to change the basis for determining prevailing wage formula. The duty to bargain requires that parties bargain sincerely and in good faith but it does not require that every argument made in support of one's position be meritorious or “accurate” in any empirically-verifiable sense. Although the unions gave some explanations for their position that were “questionable,” nothing in the record suggests that their belief in the logic and expediency of maintaining the existing formula was not “sincere” or “fairly maintained.” Moreover, because they also gave pragmatic justifications for their position, their view that the prevailing wage formula was not subject to negotiation, although mistaken, did not constitute an outright refusal to bargain over the subject. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 176 | 06/03/15 |
| 2290E | Inglewood Unified School District 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) 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 |
| 2141M | City of San Jose 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Picketing by building inspectors directed at private employers with the object of inducing private employees to refuse to work, shutting down private construction sites, was an unfair pressure tactic in violation of the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 167 | 11/10/10 |
| 2105H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 ) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) 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 |
| 2069H | State Employees Trades Council United (Ventura, et al.) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Because the union's duty to bargain in good faith is owed to the employer and not to the individual employees, individual employees do not have standing under HEERA to allege that a union has breached that duty by violating a memorandum of understanding. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 168 | 10/05/09 |
| 1971M | City of Torrance 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Union’s refusal to bargain over employer’s proposal to reduce union president’s release time constituted per se violation of duty to meet and confer in good faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 126 | 08/21/08 |
| 1918S | Union of American Physicians and Dentists (Menaster) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) An employee’s allegation that his union violated its duty to negotiate in good faith is dismissed, as it is a duty owed to the Department, not to unit members. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 135 | 08/09/07 |
| 1899E | Service Employees International Union Local 99 (Gutierrez) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) 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 |
| 1775E | Standard School District 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Union is precluded from making unilateral changes in the status quo after an agreement expires, until such time as the parties negotiate a successor agreement or they negotiate through completion of the impasse procedure. Association unilaterally changed policy by refusing to participate in the local peer assistance and review (PAR) program, whereby teachers assisted other teachers in the areas of subject matter knowledge, teaching methods, and teaching strategies; p. 14, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 162 | 08/26/05 |
| 1783M | County of Inyo * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Tulare (2020) PERB Decision No. 2697-M, where the Board held that a union does not circumvent the employer’s negotiator by making presentations to employer’s governing board, provided it does not make new proposals materially differing from those it made at the bargaining table. * * *The Board reversed the dismissal and found the Employer had stated a prima facie case of violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by the United Domestic Workers and directed a complaint to issue. Where union’s negotiator tried to circumvent employer’s negotiator contrary to the ground rules and refused to negotiate. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 8 | 11/07/05 |
| 1530S | California Correctional Peace Officers Association (Moore) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) A union chapter president’s failure to discuss complaints regarding a supervisor’s procedures on the job with the supervisor first before submitting the complaints to the Employee Relations Officer does not state a prima facie violation of the Dills Act because the union’s duty to bargain is owed to the State, not to individual employees. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 90 | 06/20/03 |
| 1425E | Sierra Sands Unified School District of Kern County 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Where District has authority to reopen contract, Union conditioning bargaining based upon reopening of contract does not demonstrate evidence of bad faith under PERB's totality of conduct test. Although charge alleged Association refused to negotiate Peer Assistance Review unless the District agreed to waive its right to bargain under the zipper clause of the parties collective bargaining agreement, no "per se" conditional bargaining violation found where parties not at impasse pursuant to PERB Regulation 32793. Allegation of refusal to bargain in good faith dismissed where although proposal to reopen contract not acceptable to District where Association did not respond to District's letter offering dates to negotiate. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32049 | 03/16/01 |
| 1282E | Southwestern Community College District 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) 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 |
| 1196E | Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Vercher) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Individual employees lack standing to allege that an employee organization failed to negotiate in good faith with the employer; p. 2; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28092 | 05/02/97 |
| 0900S | State of California, Department of Personnel Administration (Professional Engineers in California Government) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Board upheld dismissal of allegation that union failed to bargain in good faith by insisting on negotiating ground rules/released time before discussing substantive issues, either under a per se or totality of circumstances test. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22151 | 09/13/91 |
| 0815E | South Bay Union School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Sweetwater Education Association (2014) PERB Order No. IR-58 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Sweetwater Union High School District (2014) PERB Order No. IR-58, where the Board held that a union’s pre-impasse strike preparations do not indicate surface bargaining. * * *No prima facie violation that the Association refused to provide necessary and relevant information where the District failed to allege the information is necessary and relevant to either the District's statutory duties or the District's structuring of economic proposals at the bargaining table; p. 13. No violation where the Association's alleged misrepresentations did not constitute either a threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit; p. 12. The Board found the District's allegations that the Association's strike threat and strike preparation activities frustrated the negotiation process by coercing the District to make concessions constituted sufficient facts to state a prima facie violation of section 3543.6(d) of EERA; pp. 8-9. section 3543.6(d) of EERA; pp. 8-9. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21118 | 06/13/90 |
| 0803E | Los Angeles Unified School District 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Refusal to perform required duties in order to advance the union's position at the bargaining table is tantamount to a partial strike and is an unlawful bargaining tactic; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21082 | 03/30/90 |
| 0759E | El Dorado County Office of Education 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) PERB can find violations of EERA other than unfair practices set out in secs. 3543.5 and 3543.6, but filing by union of unfair practice charges over disputed contract applications does not state prima facie case of unilateral change by union, nor independent violation of section 3540. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20189 | 09/13/89 |
| 0495E | El Dorado Union High School District 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Filing of unfair practice charge or threat to file grievance not repudiation of contract or bad faith bargaining; remedy for frivolous filing or abuse of process is to seek attorney's fees. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16099 | 03/14/85 |
| 0480E | Gonzales Union High School District 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Per se bad faith bargaining by union found where it refused to bargain during summer; p. 38. Bad faith bargaining by Union found where it failed to make written proposals about discipline and layoff; p. 40. Union did not engage in per se bad faith bargaining when it refused to negotiate outside normal school hours; pp. 45-46. Evidence does not support a finding that the union engaged in "surface bargaining;" pp. 46-60. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16057 | 01/10/85 |
| 0276E | Savanna School District 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Mere inclusion of non-bargaining unit representatives on an exclusive representative's negotiating team does not constitute a violation of the duty to negotiate in good faith; p. 5, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14038 | 12/31/82 |
| 0277E | Westminster School District 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) No refusal to negotiate in good faith where Association's conduct did not indicate an intent to obstruct negotiations as (1) it was consistent with Association's prearranged understanding with mediator and (2) Association subsequently requested additional meetings and continued to seek meaningful response from District; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14034 | 12/31/82 |
| 0975E | Fresno County Office of Education 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Repudiation of a single issue, standing alone, is insufficient to establish bad faith bargaining under the per se or totality of circumstances test. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24049 | 02/22/93 |
| 0922H | Regents of the University of California (University of California-American Federation of Teachers) 804.02000: UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT; Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000) Breach of an unfair practice settlement agreement, without more does not constitute a failure to negotiate in good faith citing Regents of the University of California (1983) PERB Decision No. 362-H; p. 18. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23033 | 02/07/92 |