Decision 0206E – Moreno Valley Unified School District

LA-CE-398

Decision Date: April 30, 1982

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 6
Perc Index: 13107

Decision Headnotes

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.04000 – Time of Implementation

District's implementation of last best offer following mutual declaration of impasse, but before exhaustion of impasse procedures is, absent affirmative defense, a per se unfair practice. EERA impasse procedures comtemplate a continuation of the bilateral negotiations process. Mediation is fundamentally a bargaining process; p. 5.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.05000 – Impact and Extent

Elimination of 5 minutes from the preparation period was unlawful despite no specific evidence of impact. Impact on hours is apparent since teachers must accomplish the remainder of preparation outside regular hours. That the change was a small one may be a sensible position to take at negotiations table, but is no basis for exempting employer from obligation to bargain; pp. 9-10. (Overruled - see Imperial - PERB #825.) A single administrative error, immediately retracted by the District upon discovery, but which resulted in some teachers working noon-time duty on one day, does not demonstrate a breach of bargaining obliga- tion. Hearing officer's characterization of conduct as de minimus, inappropriate; p. 11.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02054 – Flexible Scheduling of Students

Elimination of flexible scheduling was a matter within scope of representation where it was shown to have increased class size (an enumerated subject) for an 85 minute portion of the teaching day; pp. 7-8.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02088 – Mileage Reimbursement

Change in District's mileage reimbursement procedure not shown to have affected a subject within scope; p. 11.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02125 – Salaries or Wages

Unilateral elimination of stipends is violation; p. 11-12.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02049 – Extra Duty Stipends

Unilateral elimination of extra-duty stipends is a violation of Act; p. 12.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02018 – Class Size

Unilateral increase in class size is a violation of Act; p. 12.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02107 – Preparation Time

Unilateral reduction in preparation time for grades 4-6 constitutes a violation; p. 12.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02040 – Elimination of Positions

Failure to bargain over effects of decision to eliminate Miller-Unruh Act teaching positions and positions of assistant football coach, violation; p. 12.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02161 – Yard Duty

Assigning teachers to supervise the playground prior to start of student day is not an unfair practice since it did not affect the hours worked nor any other enumerated subject within scope; p. 23, proposed dec.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.01000 – 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.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.05000 – Post-Impasse

District's implementation of last best offer following mutual declaration of impasse, but before exhaustion of impasse procedures is, absent affirmative defense, a per se unfair practice. EERA impasse procedures comtemplate a continuation of the bilateral negotiations process. Mediation is fundamentally a bargaining process; p. 5.

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.12000 – Concurrent or Derivative Violations

Employer's failure or refusal to bargain in good faith concurrently violates the rights of both the exclusive representative and the employees it represents; pp. 12-13. 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.

1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.07000 – Restoration of Status Quo

Proposed order requiring District to restore positions and programs which it has eliminated, is inappropriate. The decision to eliminate is managerial prerogative. Only effects of such decisions, which have impact on matters within scope, are subject to remedial order; p. 13.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

Hearing officer finding of violation for unilateral increase in preparation time for certain grades improper because charging party did not allege it or raise isssue at any time; p. 10.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.03000 – Business Necessity; Employer Financial Position

Financial uncertainty, resulting from passage of Proposition 13, does not enable an employer to take unilateral action on matters within scope. The employer must fulfill negotiating responsibility; pp. 17-18, proposed dec.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.07000 – Inconsistent Position Taken; W/ds or Renege on Tentative Agreement

District's changing of proposals, resulting in deletion or reduction of proposals, during negotiations is not "per se" violation of duty to bargain in good faith; p. 25, proposed dec.

1102.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; DEFERRAL TO ARBITRATION
1102.03000 – Other

District's refusal to engage in advisory arbitration after expiration of contract not unlawful. The right to compel arbitration is creature of contract. PERB has no authority to enforce agreements; pp. 26-27, proposed dec.