All notes for Subtopic 900.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A507M | City of Stockton 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General “Appointment or selection of a mediator” in MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802 means appointment or selection of a post-impasse mediator. Where an employer and a union agree to use a pre-impasse mediator to fulfill a post-impasse mediation process required pursuant to local rules or negotiation ground rules, the mediator selected pre-impasse takes on a legally significant new role after impasse, which amounts to a constructive reappointment or reselection. In contrast, where mediation is purely voluntary, PERB will not find constructive reappointment when a mediator chosen pre-impasse meets with the parties post-impasse. In that circumstance, the window for requesting factfinding is the 30 days after a written declaration of impasse. (pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 97 | 12/21/23 |
| A507M | City of Stockton 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) and PERB’s implementing regulation (PERB Reg. 32802) provide two alternate deadlines for a union to request factfinding: (1) Not sooner than 30 days, but not more than 45 days, following the appointment or selection of a mediator pursuant either to the parties’ agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency’s local rules; or (2) If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, not later than 30 days following the date that either party provided the other with written notice of a declaration of impasse. (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 97 | 12/21/23 |
| A507M | City of Stockton 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General PERB reviews an MMBA factfinding request only to determine whether the request was procedurally proper, meaning that (1) there was a written declaration of impasse from either party, or a mediator was appointed or selected to assist the parties in bridging their bargaining differences; and (2) the factfinding request was timely filed after one of these triggering events. (City of Compton (2023) PERB Order No. Ad-506-M, p. 4.) (p. 5.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 97 | 12/21/23 |
| A506M | City of Compton 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General “PERB’s review of a factfinding request is limited to determining whether the request satisfies the procedural requirements of MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802.” (County of Santa Clara (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4, citing City of Oakland (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-462-M, p. 4.) PERB does not evaluate whether the parties are in fact at impasse. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4.) Nor is it required to determine whether the impasse concerns a matter within the scope of representation. (City of Oakland, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-462-M, p. 6.) Instead, PERB’s inquiry is limited to determining whether (1) there was “a written declaration of impasse from either party, or the appointment or selection of a mediator,” and (2) the factfinding request was timely filed after one of these triggering events. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4, quoting Santa Cruz Central Fire Protection District (2016) PERB Order No. Ad 436-M, p. 5 (Santa Cruz).)Here, it was undisputed that AFSCME gave the City a written declaration of impasse and filed its factfinding request with PERB within 30 days of the impasse declaration, thereby satisfying the procedural requirements under MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) and PERB Regulation 32802, subdivision (a)(2). The City argued, however, that PERB should have denied AFSCME’s factfinding request as premature because the parties were not actually at impasse. But issues of whether a party bargained in bad faith, including whether a party properly declared impasse, must be decided through unfair practice proceedings. (See City of Folsom (2015) PERB Order No. Ad-423-M, pp. 5-6.) “PERB's unfair practice proceedings are better suited to resolving the often complex legal and factual issues raised by unfair practice allegations and for protecting the parties' rights to notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard before issues of liability are decided.” (Id. at p. 6, citing City and County of San Francisco (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-415-M, pp. 13 14.) PERB has reiterated on multiple occasions that in resolving a request for factfinding, it does not evaluate whether the parties are in fact at impasse. (See, e.g., County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, p. 4; City of Salinas (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-457-M, p. 6; Santa Cruz, supra, PERB Order No. Ad-436-M, pp. 6-7.) The City’s appeal failed to establish any reason for a different result. more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 80 | 11/06/23 |
| 2861M | Imperial Irrigation District 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Under the MMBA, only a written impasse declaration triggers a union’s deadline to seek factfinding. Thus, absent a written declaration by either party, it is difficult for an employer to claim that a union was tardy in requesting factfinding, and by extension it is difficult for such an employer to assert that it has exhausted its bargaining obligation. While the District did not declare impasse, its April 20 letter was tantamount to an impasse declaration in that it indicated the District’s intent to conclude negotiations and impose its own terms. Even had this letter expressly declared impasse, in any event the District cannot prove that a bona fide impasse existed as of April 20. Here the District was not faced with a point where continued negotiations would be futile. Far from it. Negotiations had, in fact, been productive for the nine-day period in which the parties had been exchanging proposals. By its April 20 letter, the District abandoned any further negotiations and changed employment terms by implementing the Sequestration Policy. This conduct not only proves a prima facie case of unilateral change but also a prima facie case of outright refusal to bargain, a separate per se violation of the duty to meet and confer in good faith with IBEW. (p. 49, fn. 28 & p. 50.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 163 | 05/08/23 |
| 2861M | Imperial Irrigation District 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Impasse under the MMBA “exists where the parties have considered each other’s proposals and counterproposals, attempted to narrow the gap of disagreement and have, nonetheless, reached a point in their negotiations where continued discussion would be futile.” (City of Long Beach (2012) PERB Decision No. 2296-M, p. 15 [finding the employer implemented its planned furlough despite no evidence that the parties’ negotiations had reached a point where further negotiations would be futile, regardless of whether the City declared impasse].) “An employer may impose new terms after impasse only if it has bargained in good faith throughout negotiations, from ‘inception through exhaustion of statutory or other applicable impasse resolution procedures,’ and its ‘conduct is free of unfair labor practices.’” (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, p. 60, quoting City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571, p. 6.) A party asserting impasse bears the burden of proving it. If there is doubt as to whether an impasse exists, the party asserting impasse has the burden to seek clarification of the other party’s position. (pp. 48-49.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 163 | 05/08/23 |
| A445M | City of Watsonville 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General The timeliness of an employee organization’s request for factfinding is properly based upon an initial written notice of a declaration of impasse. In situations where an employee organization has provided the employer with a written notice of a declaration of impasse, and it later believes that the parties are no longer at impasse, it is incumbent on the employee organization to withdraw its declaration of impasse. In situations where it is the employer who has provided the employee organization with a written notice of a declaration of impasse, it is incumbent on the employee organization to keep track of the statutory window period and to file its request for factfinding within that period. Employee organizations’ factfinding request was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the organizations initially provided the city with a written declaration of impasse and the organizations never withdrew the declaration. Neither the parties’ post-impasse conduct nor MMBA section 3505.7’s requirement that unions and employers meet and confer prior to the public agency’s adoption of its annual budget revived the employee organizations’ right to request factfinding upon reaching a second impasse in the same round of negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 9 | 06/27/17 |
| A445M | City of Watsonville 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General The timeliness of an employee organization’s request for factfinding is properly based upon an initial written notice of a declaration of impasse. In situations where an employee organization has provided the employer with a written notice of a declaration of impasse, and it later believes that the parties are no longer at impasse, it is incumbent on the employee organization to withdraw its declaration of impasse. In situations where it is the employer who has provided the employee organization with a written notice of a declaration of impasse, it is incumbent on the employee organization to keep track of the statutory window period and to file its request for factfinding within that period. Employee organizations’ factfinding request was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the organizations initially provided the city with a written declaration of impasse and the organizations never withdrew the declaration. Neither the parties’ post-impasse conduct nor MMBA section 3505.7’s requirement that unions and employers meet and confer prior to the public agency’s adoption of its annual budget revived the employee organizations’ right to request factfinding upon reaching a second impasse in the same round of negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 9 | 06/27/17 |
| A483M | County of Santa Clara 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General PERB’s review of a factfinding request is limited to determining whether the request satisfies the procedural requirements of MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802. That is, PERB does not evaluate whether the parties are in fact at impasse. Nor is it required to determine whether the impasse concerns a matter within the scope of representation. Rather, PERB’s inquiry is limited to determining whether (1) there was “a written declaration of impasse from either party, or the appointment or selection of a mediator,” and (2) the factfinding request was timely filed after one of these triggering events. Here, it is undisputed that the Council gave the County a written declaration of impasse on September 24 and filed its factfinding request within 30 days of the impasse declaration, thereby satisfying the procedural requirements under MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) and PERB Regulation 32802(a)(2). The Board rejected the County’s proffered interpretation of MMBA section 3504.4, subdivision (a) as inconsistent with PERB Regulations. Contrary to the County’s contention, MMBA section 3505.4, subdivision (a) does not condition factfinding on the completion of mediation mandated by an agency’s local rules. Rather, the selection or appointment of a mediator under either “the parties’ agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by a public agency’s local rules” establishes the applicable window period within which the employee organization must request factfinding. Here, no mediator was selected or appointed. (pp. 4-6) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 69 | 12/17/20 |
| 2751M | City of San Gabriel 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General The City’s allegedly diligent attempts to meet and confer in good faith before declaring impasse do not comport with the record. Formal bargaining opened on April 12, 2017, at which point the Association presented its first proposal to the City. The City effectively idled for the next three months, finally announcing on July 31, 2017 that it was available to begin negotiations on August 16 or 17, 2017. In total, 139 days passed before the parties held their second bargaining session on August 29, 2017, when the City presented its first proposal to the Association. The City’s timeline accelerated thereafter. The City did not wait for a third bargaining session or even for the Association’s response to its first proposal before issuing its LBFO on October 10, 2017. The City’s expressions of good faith ring hollow. Foremost, the City’s claimed “repeated attempts” to meet and confer with the Association were limited to the six-week period subsequent to the parties’ first formal bargaining session on August 29, 2017, with no accounting for the preceding 139 day period, during which the City appears to have sat on the Association’s proposal. Moreover, the City’s claimed attempts to meet and confer with the Association in the 42 days between August 29 and October 10, when it issued its LBFO, consists merely of a September 6, 2017 request for an additional bargaining date. Examined in their totality, these facts do not absolve the City of the finding that it rushed to impasse. We conclude, with the ALJ, that the City’s actions did not evince a genuine desire to reach an agreement, but rather a singular focus on achieving the City’s primary end—the elimination of the Flexible Benefit Plan by a date certain—at any expense to the bargaining process. (pp. 24-26.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 64 | 12/14/20 |
| 2751M | City of San Gabriel 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General A party evinces bad faith when it rushes to impasse, or if its impasse declaration is “premature, unfounded, or insincere” (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 10), as such action “demonstrate[s] an intent to subvert the negotiating process.” (County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) An employer may impose new terms after impasse only if it bargained in good faith throughout negotiations, from “inception through exhaustion of statutory or other applicable impasse resolution procedures.” (City of San Ramon, supra, PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 6.) Thus, an employer is not privileged to impose concessions absent a bona fide impasse and doing so constitutes an illegal unilateral change. The Board considers the totality of circumstances to determine whether a bona fide impasse existed, including the number and length of negotiating sessions between parties, the time period over which the negotiations occurred, and the extent to which the parties have made and discussed counterproposals to each other. (pp. 23-24.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 64 | 12/14/20 |
| 2740M | County of Merced 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General A bona fide impasse exists if the parties’ differences are so substantial and prolonged that further meeting and conferring is futile, despite good faith negotiations that were free from unfair labor practices. The party asserting impasse bears the burden of proving it, and therefore bears the risk of declaring impasse prematurely when parties were not objectively at impasse at the time. (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, p. 61; City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 6.) In determining the existence of impasse on a given date, PERB focuses on numerous factors, including: the number and length of negotiation sessions; the extent to which the parties have exchanged information and thoroughly discussed proposals and counterproposals in good faith; and the nature of the unresolved issues and the parties’ discussions of such issues to date. (Glendale, supra, PERB Decision No. 2694-M, pp. 60-61.) Continued movement on minor issues will not prevent a finding of impasse if the parties remain deadlocked on one or more major issues. (Ibid.) However, both parties must believe they are at the “end of their rope,” which is typically negated if one party displays continuing movement, or if the other party references a deadline for completion of negotiations and acts in accordance with that deadline. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 29 | 08/10/20 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General If an employer declares impasse without reaching a bona fide impasse after good faith negotiations, but the employer neither changes employment terms nor refuses to continue bargaining, the Board considers that evidence under the totality of conduct test. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 7, fn. 9; County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) In contrast, if the employer in those circumstances refuses to bargain further or proceeds to change employment terms, that constitutes further evidence of bad faith under the totality test, and it also constitutes a per se violation. (San Ramon, supra, at p. 11, fn. 9; Riverside, supra, at p. 11.) City prematurely declared impasse where both parties had additional room to move on economics, which was the main issue in the negotiations. Even assuming a first impasse, alleged impasse was broken when the parties made concessions in later negotiation sessions. An impasse “can be terminated by nearly any change in bargaining-related circumstances” that is sufficient to suggest that “attempts to adjust differences may no longer be futile.” (PERB v. Modesto City Schools District (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881, 899.) “Most obviously, an impasse will be broken when one party announces a retreat from some of its negotiating demands.” (Ibid.) City was not privileged to impose the terms contemplated in its June 20, 2012 proposal, both because of its refusal to meet after June 20, 2-12 and its unremedied unilateral changes pertaining to unilaterally subcontracting bargaining unit work. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General PERB precedent defines “impasse” as a point at which the parties’ differences remain so substantial and prolonged that further meeting and conferring would be futile. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 6; County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) An employer may impose new terms after impasse only if it has bargained in good faith throughout negotiations, from “inception through exhaustion of statutory or other applicable impasse resolution procedures,” and its “conduct is free of unfair labor practices.” (San Ramon, supra, PERB Decision No. 2751-M, p. 6; City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 40.) In determining the existence of impasse on a given date, PERB focuses on numerous factors, including: the number and length of negotiation sessions; the extent to which the parties have exchanged information and thoroughly discussed proposals and counterproposals in good faith; and the nature of the unresolved issues and the parties’ discussions of such issues to date. (San Ramon, supra, PERB Decision No. 2571-M, pp. 9-12; Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, pp. 13-14.) Continued movement on minor issues will not prevent a finding of impasse if the parties remain deadlocked on one or more major issues. (Regents of the University of California (1985) PERB Decision No. 520-H, p. 17.) However, both parties must believe they are at the “end of their rope.” (Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Administrative determinations regarding MMBA factfinding requests do not preclude contrary findings after a formal hearing in a related unfair practice charge. Administrative determinations of MMBA factfinding requests do not generally provide either a charging party or a respondent a basis for prevailing in a related bad faith bargaining case. For instance, such an administrative determination does not establish whether there existed a legitimate, good faith impasse permitting an employer to impose the terms of its last offer. (See City & County of San Francisco (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-415-M, p. 12 [Although an MMBA factfinding request may involve issues that overlap with those in a related unfair practice case, determinations made as part of the factfinding request generally do “not prejudice or determine the ultimate outcome in the unfair practice case”].) This is because OGC must reach an administrative determination after a very limited investigation that does not create a reliable evidentiary record like that developed during a formal hearing on an unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| A458M | County of Solano 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Generally, where the exclusive representative has made a request for factfinding that is timely under any plausible interpretation of the public agency’s local rules and that is accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement to their dispute, PERB must accept the request as timely and allow the parties to proceed to factfinding. Here, however, while the local rules appear to contemplate selection of a mediator by mutual agreement of the parties as one option, the employee organization’s conduct was inconsistent with that option, regardless of whether it was the default option or simply one option among others. Because the organization appears to have accepted the selection of the mediator and expressed no reservations about this selection, nor suggested any other mediator or any alternative process whereby the parties would mutually agree on the identity of the mediator, the Board rejected its appeal and adopted the administrative determination that the employee organization’s request for factfinding was untimely. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 78 | 01/09/18 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Although Charging Party requested a resumption of negotiations over health benefit contributions following a declaration of impasse and the exhaustion of applicable impasse resolution procedures, it pointed to no ground rules or similar agreement requiring the parties to negotiate this issue separately from the other subjects in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was legally privileged to refuse to resume bargaining. (p. 12.) Although parties may agree to ground rules governing the time and place of their negotiations, including arrangements to discuss specific subjects separately or in a particular order, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others or make continued negotiations conditional upon reaching agreement over a single subject and thereby refuse to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General The Board rejected Charging Party’s exception that, by requesting bargaining over a single issue following impasse, the Charging Party had effectively broken the deadlock and revived the Respondent’s duty to bargain over the single issue, which had already been part of the overall deadlock reached in negotiations for a successor MOU. (pp. 10-11.) The Board found no violation of the duty to bargain because Charging Party’s request for single-issue negotiations did not break the impasse and revive the Respondent’s duty to bargain. Although impasse necessarily entails an overall deadlock in negotiations, it may stem from disagreement over a single subject, if the disagreement is of such importance that the parties’ failure to agree on that one subject causes all negotiations to break down. (pp. 10-11.) The party asserting that an impasse has been broken must point to the changed circumstances that would justify a return to the bargaining table. Mere speculation regarding possible concessions by the other party is insufficient to revive bargaining. There must be substantial evidence that a party is committed to a new bargaining position. Vague and general statements about possible concessions or a request by one party for additional meetings, if unaccompanied by an indication of the areas in which that party foresees future concessions, are insufficient to break an impasse where the other party has clearly announced that its position is final. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Applying precedents decided under other PERB-administered statutes, the Board held that a the Trial Court Act employer need not make a second formal declaration of impasse or re-invoke the impasse resolution procedures contained in its local rules when those same procedures had already been exhausted without resolving the same dispute over a successor MOU. PERB cases decided under EERA and the Dills Act hold that “once the statute’s impasse procedures have been concluded, PERB has no authority to recertify impasse or [to] reinvoke impasse procedures,” which have already failed to resolve the dispute. (p. 11.) Thus, it was unnecessary for the Court to make another formal declaration of impasse or invoke the impasse resolution procedures in the EERR when those same procedures had already been exhausted without resolving the same dispute over a successor MOU. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| A462M | City of Oakland 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General PERB’s review of a factfinding request is limited to determining whether an exclusive representative’s request satisfies the procedural requirements of Gov. Code Section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802. (p. 4) Although factfinding only applies to disputes over matters within the scope of representation, the Office of the General Counsel will not assess whether the subject of the parties’ dispute is within the scope of representation before approving the factfinding request. (pp. 3-4, 6) The Office of the General Counsel must approve the request unless the Board has previously declared a subject outside the scope of bargaining via the unfair practice process. Where neither PERB nor the courts have rendered such a decision, a factfinding request otherwise in compliance with the statutory and regulatory prerequisites must be approved. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 141 | 04/30/18 |
| 2571M | City of San Ramon 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General A party demonstrates bad faith when it rushes to impasse, or if its impasse declaration is “premature, unfounded, or insincere. Employer that raises impasse as a defense to a unilateral change must demonstrate that the parties were at impasse in their negotiations. (North Star Steel Co. (1991) 305 NLRB 45.) Even if the gap between the parties’ positions was substantial and prolonged, an employer may declare impasse only if it has bargained in good faith throughout negotiations, from inception through exhaustion of impasse resolution procedures, and its “conduct is free of unfair labor practices.” (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M (San Jose), p. 40.) Otherwise, an employer’s impasse declaration is evidence of bad faith, irrespective of whether the employer imposes new terms. (County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) If an employer declares impasse without reaching a bona fide good faith impasse, but the employer neither imposes new terms nor refuses to continue bargaining, PERB considers that evidence under the totality of conduct test. (Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) If the employer refuses to bargain further or proceeds to impose new terms, that is further evidence of bad faith, and is also a per se violation. (Id. at p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 6 | 06/20/18 |
| A429M | City and County of San Francisco 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Board affirmed its holding in County of Contra Costa (2014) PERB Order No. Ad-410-M that the plain language of the MMBA and its legislative history indicate that the Legislature intended to make MMBA factfinding available for any “differences” over any matter within the scope of representation, including single-issue disputes, so long as the employee organization's request is timely and the dispute is not subject to one of the statutory exceptions. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 74 | 10/15/15 |
| 2414M | County of Tulare * * * VACATED IN PART by County of Tulare (2016) PERB Decision No. 2414a-M 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General * * * VACATED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Tulare (2016) PERB Decision No. 2414a-M. * * *While employers are privileged to impose terms and conditions of employment on a prospective basis, they cannot do so retroactively. An employer is not privileged to insist to impasse on a proposal to renegotiate terms settled by a previous agreement, nor to impose terms that take back wages or benefits that have already accrued to employees, even after bargaining in good faith to impasse. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 111 | 02/26/15 |
| A410M | County of Contra Costa 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General The factfinding procedures added to the MMBA by AB 646, and codified at MMBA sections 3505.4 through 3505.7, apply to any bargaining impasse over negotiable terms and conditions of employment, and not only to impasses over new or successor MOU. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 154 | 04/16/14 |
| A414M | County of Fresno 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General The plain meaning of AB 646 did not limit MMBA factfinding procedures only to impasses in negotiations for comprehensive MOUs. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 8 | 06/17/14 |
| 2288M | City of Pinole 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Employer lawfully implemented its last, best and final offer retroactively. The fact that the parties continued to negotiate over proposals does not preclude employer, upon having bargained to impasse in good faith, from implementing the terms of its last, best and final offer retroactively as presented during negotiations. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 90 | 10/15/12 |
| 2271M | City of Davis 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General By unilaterally cancelling fact-finding and implementing last, best and final offer, City failed to meet its obligation to participate in good faith in impasse resolution procedures. While the parties disagreed as to the manner of presentation to the arbitrator, the City had available two less severe options than canceling the fact-finding. City failed to establish a business necessity for implementing its last, best and final offer, in that it did not declare a fiscal emergency and had reserves sufficient to face projected shortfall. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 12 | 06/08/12 |
| 2041M | City and County of San Francisco 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Impasse exists where the parties have considered each other’s proposals and counterproposals, attempted to narrow the gap of disagreement and have, nonetheless, reached a point in their negotiations where continued discussion would be futile. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 120 | 06/29/09 |
| 2105H | Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 ) 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General A unilateral change in a negotiable subject prior to the completion of impasse procedures is a “per se” violation. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 73 | 04/21/10 |
| 2100M | County of Sonoma 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General County was not required to submit to the binding interest arbitration provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1299 et seq. prior to implementing its last, best and final offer, in light of holding by court of appeal in County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 322, 344, 346-347, review denied, that the governing statute is unconstitutional. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 54 | 02/25/10 |
| 2018S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Generally, an employer cannot change matters within the scope of representation without first providing the exclusive representative notice and opportunity to negotiate. Once impasse is reached under the Dills Act, however, an employer may take unilateral action to implement “any or all” of the proposals contained in its LBFO. In such cases, the unilateral adoptions must be reasonably comprehended within the pre-impasse proposals. Moreover, if a proposal contained in the LBFO conflicts with existing law or requires the expenditure of funds, the proposal must be approved by the Legislature. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 71 | 04/07/09 |
| 2074M | City of Clovis 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General MMBA section 3505.4 provides that once an impasse has been properly reached, a public agency “may implement its last, best and final offer.” The provision is permissive, not mandatory. The agency is not obligated to implement the last, best, and final offer. No binding agreement existed, as the Union failed to present sufficient evidence that it had tendered a post-impasse acceptance of the City’s last, best, and final offer. Furthermore, even if the Union had shown valid acceptance of the last, best, and final offer, MMBA section 3505.1 requires the agreement be reduced to writing and ratified by the governing agency before it will become binding on the parties. Here, the record was void of any evidence that an agreement was reduced to writing and ratified by the City. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 179 | 10/30/09 |
| 2009M | Kings In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Charge failed to allege a prima facie case that the employer failed to participate in good faith in the scheduling of an impasse meeting, where the union failed to timely respond to the employer’s proposed dates for an impasse meeting and only proposed a date that was a public holiday. Charge failed to allege a prima facie case that the employer failed to participate in local impasse procedures authorizing voluntary mediation upon agreement by both parties, where the charge failed to allege that the union ever requested mediation during the impasse procedures or the employer refused such a request. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 52 | 03/10/09 |
| 1823Ha | Trustees of the California State University 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General On remand from published Court of Appeal decision, Board vacated February 23, 2006 decision in Trustees of the California State University (2006) PERB Decision No. 1823-H. Court of Appeal found no violation of HEERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 53 | 02/14/08 |
| 1416E | Orange Unified School District 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General After the recommendations of a factfinding panel have been issued and considered in good faith, the parties may remain at impasse or return to the bargaining table until they reach agreement; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32021 | 12/11/00 |
| 1157H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General The declaration of impasse ends the parties' formal obligation to meet and confer under HEERA section 3571(c); the duty to meet and confer remains dormant unless revived by changed circumstances, such as significant concessions by either party; p. 3. Absent changed circumstances, the Board examines allegations of post-impasse bad faith bargaining under section 3571(e), rather than 3571(c); p. 3. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27111 | 06/13/96 |
| 1141E | Redwoods Community College District 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Parties to a collective bargaining agreement are not prohibited from negotiating alternative methods to attempt to resolve disputes. However, if the agreed upon dispute resolution process is unsuccessful, the parties are prohibited from making a unilateral change in a negotiable subject or engaging in strike activities until they have completed the statutory impasse procedure set out in the EERA; p. 3. The statutory impasse resolution procedure was intended by the Legislature to protect the public from the disruption of public employee strikes by providing a method other than a work stoppage for resolving a deadlock in bargaining; p. 15, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27048 | 02/28/96 |
| 1092E | Marin Community College District 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General No genuine impasse where negotiations have stalled as a result of bad faith negotiations; p. 85, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26070 | 03/21/95 |
| 1010H | California State University (California Faculty Association) 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General There is no maximum period of time within which a party must request factfinding; pp. 3-4, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24148 | 09/02/93 |
| 0815E | South Bay Union School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Sweetwater Education Association (2014) PERB Order No. IR-58 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sweetwater Union High School District (2014) PERB Order No. IR-58. * * *The Board will dismiss allegation that the Association violated section 3543.6(c) when alleged events occurred during the period the parties were engaged in the statutory impasse procedures. Appropriate inquiry is whether conduct violated section 3543.6(d); p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21118 | 06/13/90 |
| 0728E | Compton Community College District 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General The possibility that employees engaged in a spontaneous protest (sick out), without other evidence, will not support a charge that the union refused to participate in the impasse procedures in good faith; pp. 69-70, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20076 | 04/04/89 |
| 0326E | Oakland Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855 * * * No impasse where parties have stalemated as result of bad faith bargaining; p. 43. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14195 | 07/11/83 |
| 0277E | Westminster School District 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General No refusal to bargain or participate in impasse where statements at public meeting did not constitute negotiations; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14034 | 12/31/82 |
| 0206E | Moreno Valley Unified School District 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General Unlawful unilateral actions during impasse procedures [3543.5(e)] are also violations of duty to negotiate in good faith [3543.5(c)] because violations during impasse frustrate purposes of subsection (c). Mediation remains fundamentally a continuation of the negotiations process; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13107 | 04/30/82 |
| 1004E | Saddleback Community College District 900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General No violation of section 3543.5(e) where District refused to meet with factfinder after 30 day period where no other evidence that District frustrated the factfinding process; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24117 | 06/25/93 |