Decision 0841E – Temple City Unified School District

LA-CE-2789, 2800

Decision Date: September 20, 1990

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 14
Perc Index: 21186

Decision Headnotes

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

Totality of conduct test looks to entire course of negotiations to see if parties negotiated with the required subjective intent of reaching an agreement.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.01000 – In General

An employer's unilateral change in terms or conditions of employment within the scope of representation is, absent a valid defense, a per se refusal to negotiate in violation of EERA section 3543.5(c). When unilateral changes occur during EERA's impasse procedures, they violate EERA section 3543.5(e); p. 24, proposed dec.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.03000 – Contract Repudiation or Breach

Unambiguous contract provisions required the District to increase unit member's fringe benefit contributions in amount equal to yearly increases in premiums. The fact that contract contained reopeners did not excuse District's failure to maintain status quo by paying increases in health insurance premiums pending completion of negotiations; p. 25-27, proposed dec.

605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.02000 – Insistence on Nonmandatory/Illegal Subjects (See also Scope of Representation, Sec 1000)

Record failed to show insistence to impasse on nonmandatory subjects of bargaining where District proposed that union withdraw grievances and unfair practice charges during initial phases of impasse procedure but did not insist upon those proposals during later phases of impasse procedure; p. 32-33, proposed dec.

605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.04000 – Conditional Bargaining; Piecemeal or Fragmented Bargaining

Record failed to show unlawful conditioned bargaining where District proposed that union withdraw grievances and unfair practice charges during initial phases of impasse procedure but did not insist upon those proposals during later phases of impasse procedure; p. 32-33, proposed dec.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.08000 – Exhaustion of Impasse Procedures or Time Between Impasse and Mediation

Right to implement "last, best, and final" offer is dependent on having first bargained in good faith through exhaustion of impasse procedures.

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

Right to implement "last, best, and final" offer is dependent on having first bargained in good faith through exhasution of impasse procedures.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02059 – Health Plans

Health and welfare benefits are enumerated subjects within the scope of representation under EERA section 3543.2; p. 24, proposed dec.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.02000 – Weight Given to ALJ’s Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions

Board normally gives deference to the credibility determination of ALJ's because they witnessed the live testimony and are better placed to make accurate determinations.

1201.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS
1201.04000 – Restoration of Benefits

In unilateral change cases, Board usually orders the employer to restore status quo as it existed prior to action. District ordered to compensate any affected unit employee for out-of-pocket monetary losses incurred as a result of District's failure to make fringe benefit contribution as required by contract.

409.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES
409.06000 – Free Speech

Portions of written communications by the District to the employees were threatening and coercive where the District stated that negotiations on financial matters could not continue and no financial commitments could be made until all grievances were resolved. District's statement of intention to call in professional negotiators not a threat. Employer does not violate EERA merely by being critical of a union or making unfavorable comparisons with exclusive representatives for other units.