Decision 0842H – Regents of the University of California (Davis, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and San Diego)

HEERA requires University to notify nonexclusively represented individual employees of proposed changes in employment conditions and, if the employee chooses to have his or her union meet with employer to discuss the changes, such meetings are to be held upon request; pp. 9-10; pp. 39-41, proposed dec.

HEERA requires University to notify nonexclusively represented individual employees of proposed changes in employment conditions and, if the employee chooses to have his or her union meet with employer to discuss the changes, such meetings are to be held upon request. Here, University failed to give adequate advance notice that a split payment was necessary and, instead, simply notified the employees that the decision had been made. Whatever information was disseminated was too ambiguous to satisfy University's duty to give notice; p. 13-14; pp. 40-48, proposed dec. Nonexclusively represented employeed affected by employer's decision about split payment of merit salary increase did not have reasonable amount of time between notice and implementation of change to allow them to exercise the representational rights recognized by the court amount of time between notice and implementation of change to allow them to exercise the representational rights recognized by the court What constitues adequate notice should be determined by the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Method of notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise employees of the impending charge; consideration should be given to factors as reliability of past means of giving notice, size of employee group, geographic considerations, and availability of various methods of communication.

No waiver where employees and non-exclusive representative notified after decision to implement change was made and carried out.

Where University breached its obligation to give notice of proposed split payment to nonexclusively represented employees, no backpay award was appropriate since the meet and discuss obligation requires neither agreement or impasse, the outcome of any meetings and the University's ability to fund the entire increase at one time is speculative. While ordinary remedy and unilateral change case is restoration of status quo ante, including backpay and interest, the Board has denied backpay where entitlement thereto is speculative; p. 17.

Where University breached its obligation to give notice of proposed split payment to nonexclusive represented employees, no backpay award was appropriate since the meet and discuss obligation requires neither agreement or impasse, the outcome of any meetings and the University's ability to fund the entire increase at one time is speculative. While ordinary remedy and unilateral change case is restoration of status quo ante, including backpay and interest, the Board has denied backpay where entitlement thereto is speculative; p. 17.

Where University breached its obligation to give notice of proposed split payment to nonexclusive represented employees, no backpay award was appropriate since the meet and discuss obligation requires neither agreement or impasse, the outcome of any meetings and the University's ability to fund the entire increase at one time is speculative. While ordinary remedy and unilateral change case is restoration of status quo ante, including backpay and interest, the Board has denied backpay where entitlement thereto is speculative; p. 17.

No waiver where employees and non-exclusive representative notified after decision to implement change was made and carried out.

No waiver where employees and non-exclusive representative notified after decision to implement change was made and carried out.

No waiver where employees and non-exclusive representative notified after decision to implement change was made and carried out.