All notes for Subtopic 900.02000 – Declaration/Determination of Impasse
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2861M | Imperial Irrigation District 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 |
| A455M | County of Solano 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 | 55 | 10/25/17 |
| 2740M | County of Merced 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse When there is any doubt as to whether an impasse exists, the party asserting impasse should clarify. (City of Salinas (2018) PERB Order No. Ad-457-M, p. 5.) MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802, subdivision (a)(2), refer to a written declaration of impasse as the trigger for a union’s deadline to seek factfinding. Thus, absent a written declaration by either party, it may become difficult for an employer to claim that a union was tardy in requesting factfinding, and by extension it may be difficult for such an employer to assert that it has exhausted its bargaining obligation. The Board did not address in this decision whether there are instances in which a party may rely on an oral declaration of impasse, particularly for purposes other than triggering a union’s deadline to request factfinding under the MMBA. more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 29 | 08/10/20 |
| 2740M | County of Merced 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 |
| A457M | City of Salinas 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse For purposes of triggering a request for factfinding under MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802, a letter stating that the respondent “has fulfilled its obligation under the MMBA . . . by meeting and conferring on May 8, 2017 to discuss and possibly reach agreement regarding the grievance board appointments,” was sufficient written notice of a declaration of impasse. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 77 | 01/04/18 |
| A457M | City of Salinas 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse Neither the Office of the General Counsel, nor the Board on appeal, is required to sift through documents provided by the exclusive representative in order to find a declaration of impasse. When presented with a dispute about whether there has been written notice of a declaration of impasse, the Office of the General Counsel may, as part of its investigation, require the requesting party to provide the written notice. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 77 | 01/04/18 |
| 2523C | El Dorado County Superior Court 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 |
| 2571M | City of San Ramon 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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, 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. (County of Riverside (2014) 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 |
| A462M | City of Oakland 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 |
| 2505M | City of Roseville 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse Where parties tentatively agreed to negotiate “Other Post-Employment Benefits” separate from MOU negotiations and no other evidence was presented as to the importance of that subject or whether the parties’ failure to reach agreement on it contributed in any meaningful way to the breakdown in negotiations, Board declined to disturb ALJ’s finding that negotiations had reached a bona fide impasse as the result of good-faith bargaining. Impasse refers to an overall deadlock in negotiations. An employer may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and then bargain to impasse only as to that subject and impose its proposal, while refusing to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. Although impasse may result from disagreement over a single subject, that subject must be of such critical and overriding importance to the parties that disagreement on that subject alone causes an overall breakdown in negotiations such that further bargaining over any subject would be futile. (pp. 33-35.) more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 97 | 11/30/16 |
| 2461M | County of Tulare 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse The County did not improperly or prematurely declare impasse or set an arbitrary deadline when it asked for SEIU’s response to its LBFO. Nor did the County insist that negotiations conclude by a certain time, and it took no action when SEIU did not respond by the requested date. Further, SEIU did not communicate to the County at any point that it had any movement to make or new proposals to offer, and SEIU’s conduct demonstrated that it believed further discussions would be futile. An agenda item may suffice to provide notice of a declaration of impasse if it is delivered to a proper official and is presented in a manner reasonably calculated to draw attention. When ground rules make the parties’ chief spokespersons responsible for coordinating communications between the parties, the chief spokespersons may delegate their responsibilities to others. The union’s chief spokesperson directed another union representative to ask the county when it would implement its LBFO. The county replied, providing an agenda which indicated the county believed the parties were at impasse. The union did not deny receipt of the agenda or dispute the county’s belief that the parties were at impasse. The county reasonably concluded that the union had no further proposals, movement, or a desire to continue negotiations, and properly determined the parties were at impasse. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 81 | 10/30/15 |
| A436M | Santa Cruz Central Fire Protection District 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse PERB has a limited role under the MMBA in determining the bona fides of an impasse declaration in the context of a factfinding request. PERB must accept a declaration of impasse at face value, as the statutory and regulatory factfinding process under the MMBA does not authorize PERB to independently determine at this state of the proceedings whether an impasse exists. The MMBA and PERB Regulations only condition factfinding on a declaration of impasse by one of the parties. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 174 | 04/26/16 |
| A418M | Workforce Investment Board of Solano County 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse PERB’s role in reviewing a factfinding request is limited. MMBA section 3505.4 and PERB Regulation 32802, read together, posit as sufficient conditions for factfinding under MMBA, the following: either participation in mediation or absent mediation a declaration of impasse by one of the parties, plus a request by the exclusive representative for factfinding, accompanied by a statement that the parties have been unable to effect a settlement. In reviewing a factfinding request PERB relies on the parties’ representations concerning the status of their bargaining and or mediation discussions and does not assess an employer’s defenses to its duty to bargain. Nor does PERB determine whether the party seeking factfinding has articulated with sufficient clarity its position on the issue. These are matters properly left to clarifying discussions between the parties and for resolution in an unfair practice proceeding if either party files a charge. To inject such issues into a factfinding investigation would encourage both delay and gamesmanship, thus defeating the principal purpose of factfinding, namely, through intervention of a neutral to assist the parties in reaching a voluntary and prompt resolution of their differences and thereby promote “full communication between public employers and their employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and public employee organizations.” more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 65 | 11/17/14 |
| 2380M | City of Selma 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse The City’s refusal to negotiate after presenting a revised bargaining proposal, the limited number of face-to-face bargaining sessions that preceded the declaration of impasse, and the City’s refusal to provide any explanation for its sudden change in its LBFO, considered together, indicates that the City prematurely declared impasse without bargaining in good faith. An administrative law judge must have latitude to make reasonable inferences, based on the totality of the circumstances in the record, of whether future negotiations would be futile when determining if impasse was prematurely declared. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 11 | 06/27/14 |
| 2360M | County of Riverside 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse The lack of impasse was demonstrated by SEIU unequivocally signaling to the County that it had room to move on the negotiable issues of stewards’ pay and overtime, after SEIU had moved on its overtime proposal in a direction favorable to the County. Also, the County acknowledged in a side-bar conversation with SEIU that it looked like they were making progress on the overtime issue. The County declared impasse over comparatively minor issues that it had reason to believe SEIU would make further movement on, and set an arbitrary deadline in order to impose the elimination of step increases, not because the possibilities for compromise had been exhausted. The parties signed 18 tentative agreements on the same day the County declared impasse. The Board rejected the County’s argument that it possessed the absolute right to determine an impasse in negotiations and that its determination of impasse is unreviewable by PERB. Pursuant to PERB’s unquestioned authority to determine whether unfair practices have occurred, it necessarily has the authority to determine whether an impasse declared by either party is genuine. The lack of subjective bad faith in the negotiations leading up to the County’s impasse declaration does nothing to absolve it of liability for implementing a unilateral change in wages before impasse was genuinely reached. The Board rejected the County’s claim of economic urgency, finding that such economic exigency provides no justification for suspending the duty to bargain in good faith, and that an employer’s deadline such as the beginning of a budget year or the expiration of an MOU is not an excuse to avoid bargaining in good faith. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 138 | 03/25/14 |
| 2041M | City and County of San Francisco 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse If a party is privileged to claim impasse, the other party must be privileged to dispute that claim. Although this rule is particularly true where it is claimed that the declaration was made in bad faith, it is not limited to bad faith bargaining alone. An objecting party may also oppose a declaration of impasse based on a technical defense that impasse is unfounded under an objective standard. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 120 | 06/29/09 |
| 2009M | Kings In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 |
| 1986E | Rio School District 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse Employer’s failure to withdraw its request that PERB certify impasse after employee organization stated in writing that it wished to negotiate over successor collective bargaining agreement did not show the employer failed to participate in impasse procedures in good faith. Employer’s conduct did not indicate it lacked subjective intent to reach agreement but instead showed that it wanted to proceed with statutory impasse procedures as soon as possible. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 8 | 11/21/08 |
| 1333H | Trustees of the California State University (California Faculty Association) 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse The determination of impasse is vested with the Board itself, it is clear that impasse exists only when the Board makes such a determination, not when one or both of the parties believe impasse has been reached; p. 3, dismissal letter. Impasse is determined not upon oral notification by PERB pursuant to Regulation 32793, but upon service of the determination in writing; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30129 | 06/25/99 |
| A177H | California State University (California Faculty Association) 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse No abuse of discretion in regional director's determination of impasse as regional director fairly and reasonably weighed the enumerated factors in PERB Regulation 32793(c); pp. 1-2. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20008 | 12/16/88 |
| A129H | Regents of the University of California (Statewide University Police Association) 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse In determining the existence of an impasse, the regional director failed to address employer allegations that the exclusive representative did not negotiate in good faith. Impasse exists only where the parties have attempted in good faith to reach agreement prior to arriving at the point where the differences in their positions make further negotiations futile. In the absence of exclusive representative's submissions contesting the employer's assertions, determination of impasse is set aside and parties ordered to return to the negotiating table. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13139 | 06/23/82 |
| A129Ha | Regents of the University of California (Statewide University Police Association) 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse Through administrative oversight, the Board in its earlier ruling overlooked certain submissions contesting the employer's allegations of failure to negotiate in good faith. The Board reconsiders its earlier decision and remands the issue to the regional director for resolution of the conflicting factual allegations. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13183 | 08/09/82 |
| A124E | Mt. San Antonio Community College District 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse Impasse exists where the parties have considered each other's proposals and counterproposals, attempted to narrow the gap of disagreement and have, nonetheless, reached the point in their negotiations where continued discussion would be futile. Finding of impasse is vacated where record indicates that parties have not had any meaningful discussion of proposals, exchange of counterproposals or movement toward agreement on substantive issues. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13023 | 12/30/81 |
| A126E | Marin Community College District 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse While determination of impasse implies that parties attempted in good faith to reach agreement, it is not possible within statutory time frame to make a full determination of good faith. Board agents satisfy requirements by applying guidelines set out in PERB Regulation 36030(c). more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13097 | 04/21/82 |
| A073E | Ramona Unified School District 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse Appeal of impasse determination denied where there has been no apparent abuse of discretion by regional director. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10114 | 08/10/79 |
| A026E | Redwood City School District 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse Regional director correctly found existence of impasse where, after 19 negotiating meetings over seven months, parties still have several major areas of dispute and no further meetings scheduled. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2065 | 03/16/78 |
| 1010H | California State University (California Faculty Association) 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse 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 |
| 0720E | Compton Community College District 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse Unilateral change prior to the exhaustion of the impasse procedures violates EERA section 3543.5(e). more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20057 | 03/01/89 |
| 0520H | Regents of the University of California (Statewide University Police Association) 900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse Impasse has been reached when parties are deadlocked on one or several major issues, even if the parties continue to meet and even if concessions on minor issues are made/possible. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16207 | 09/17/85 |