Decision 0784E – Compton Unified School District

Since the overtime compensation practice was based on a long standing practice and not specifically covered by the collective bargaining agreement, CSEA was not required to exhaust the grievance machinery.

Diminution of overtime opportunity constitutes a change in wages, an enumerated scope item, and is subject to negotiations.

An employer may not take unilateral action on negotiable subjects, even if faced with actual economic collapse of unknown proportions. It may bring its concerns to the bargaining table. District's claim that it was required by operational necessity to unilaterally reduce overtime to allow students to complete a work study program did not constitute a defense of economic necessity.

While broad subject of overtime was addressed in collective bargaining agreement, contract language regarding overtime was too general and imprecise to grant District discretion to authorize and order overtime based on District program needs. District produced no evidence of bargaining history from which one could reasonably interpret the contractual provisions as a waiver of CSEA's right to notice and bargain over changes in overtime pay.

District violated EERA section 3543.5(b) and (c) when it unilaterally changed a long standing practice for determining overtime compensation.

As the specific overtime compensation practice was not covered by cba, PERB has jurisdiction over unfair practice charge.

District violated EERA sections 3543.5(b) and (c) when it changed its overtime policy without negotiating with CSEA.