Decision 0648S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)

A proposal to prohibit the employer from assigning work of striking employees to nonstriking employees in another unit is negotiable. The employer has an obligation to bargain with an employee organization that is not striking concerning work normally done by employees who are striking.

A union proposal containing a blanket prohibition on subcontracting unit work, including contracting out for reasons other than labor costs, is outside the scope of representation. Management decisions to contract out unit work for reasons other than labor costs are nonnegotiable, but the effects of such decisions are within scope.

As under the EERA, the legislature intended that, under the Dills Act, decisions to lay off remain exclusively with the employer. The employer did not have to bargain over a proposal to limit the reason for layoffs to lack of work or funds and to require consultation with the union over the reasons for a layoff.

Work-preservation clauses are within scope even when intertwined with a proposal containing a blanket prohibition on the transfer of unit work. Where a transfer of work occurs in a situation that is not an emergency, the union has a vested right in maintaining what it already has.

A proposal on discipline which provides for State Personnel Board (SPB) review on an arbitrator's decision only in the case of a decision adverse to the employee conflicts with California Constitution Article VII which grants SPB the power to review disciplinary actions in that it does not provide for equal access to the SPB for both employer and employee. It is outside scope.

Work-preservation clauses are within scope even when intertwined with a proposal containing a blanket prohibition on the transfer of unit work. Where a transfer of work occurs in a situation that is not an emergency, the union has a vested right in maintaining what it already has.