Decision 0080E – Muroc Unified School District

District's act of conditioning negotiations on acceptance of one item contract not unlawful where demand was retracted, negotiations conducted from that point on on all topics and demand had no discernable impact on negotiations; pp. 18-19.

Evidence fails to support allegation that employer reneged on tentative agreement where there was no agreed method for designating tentative agreements and agreement was once again reached at next session; p. 18.

Single instance of delaying next bargaining session does not establish a design to frustrate negotiations; p. 17.

Essence of surface bargaining is where a party goes through the motions of negotiations, but in fact is weaving otherwise unobjectionable conduct into an entangling fabric to delay or prevent agreement; specific conduct may be wholly proper, but when placed in the context of the negotiations supports the conclusion that the party is not negotiating with the requisite subjective intent to reach agreement; p. 13.

Employers not precluded from freely expressing their views, but are precluded from using direct communications with employees to bypass exclusive rep. or undermine rep.'s exclusive authority to represent unit members; touchstone for determining propriety of direct communications is effect on authority of the exclusive rep.; no violation where employer twice communicated with employees on status of negotiations, and did not misrepresent the positions of the parties or attempt to sway the views of employees through a campaign of communications while maintaining an inflexible position at the table; pp. 19-22.

District granted release time to a reasonable number of union negotiators (4) where record devoid of evidence of need for more and where district's policy was not unyielding to changing circumstances; among relevant factors in determining reasonable number released are complexity of negotiations, reasonable needs of union to include reps. of various subgroups in unit, and number of hours spent in negotiations; given differences in operation, particularly lack of exclusive rep.; past practice under Winton Act of little relevance in determining release time needs under EERA; pp. 10-13.

District's refusal to tape record bargaining sessions not bad faith; pp. 14-17. Advantages of precise record outweighed by deleterious effects on frankness of negotiations; given differences in the two statutes, district's past practice under Winton Act of agreeing to tape recordings does not indicate bad faith; District did not unlawfully attempt to limit number of union negotiators where it allowed as may as desired but limited release time to a limited number; p. 17. No evidence of bad faith by changing (chief) negotiators where replacements were present at every session and there was no evidence of loss of continuity due to changes; p. 18. Even assuming district improperly conditioned negotiations on union's acceptance of one-item contract (salary), negotiations from that point included all items and there was no discernable impact on negotiations; pp. 18-19. included all items and there was no discernable impact on negotiations; pp. 18-19.