Decision 0873E – Charter Oak Unified School District

LA-CE-2920

Decision Date: April 4, 1991

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 15
Perc Index: 22067

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

Employer negotiator's statement that the factfinding would "not make any difference, because the [District] Board will not accept the factfinding report anyway" constitutes evidence of bad faith bargaining; pp. 7-8.

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

No unilateral change stated where District implemented policies reasonably comprehended within previous offers, the parties were at impasse and factual allegations were insufficient to show that the District acted in bad faith.

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

The charge failed to state a prima facie case of failure to bargain in good faith where, after second impasse, the District failed to implement all of the tentative agreements reached by the parties, implemented two provisions from its last, best and final offer and retained provisions of the prior expired MOU on other issues. The expired MOU stated that tentative agreements were to be "set aside to be later incorporated into a final contractual agreement," pp. 14-15.

603.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; BYPASSING EXCLUSIVE REP
603.03000 – Usurping the Role of Union as Rep; Employer Speaking to or on Behalf of Employees

The charge failed to state a prima facie case of bypassing where no facts supporting the allegation that the statements were false, misleading or derogatory. Even if the statements were false, misleading and derogatory, the statements contain no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. Rio Hondo Community College District (1980) PERB Decision No. 128, pp. 15-17.

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

No prima facie case of regressive bargaining where the District proposed a "package" which contained some provisions less beneficial to the Association than prior proposals, and some provisions more beneficial; pp. 17-18.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.09000 – Failure to Treat Bargaining Obligation Seriously

After short caucus, quick District response to union proposal not evidence of bad faith given the surrounding circumstances; p. 11-12.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.15000 – Other

No prima facie case of regressive bargaining where the District proposed a "package" which contained some provisions less beneficial to the Association than prior proposals, and some provisions more beneficial; pp. 17-18.

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

The parties obligation after factfinding are contained in Modesto, No. 291 and include consideration of the recommendations in good faith to determine whether there is a basis for settlement, or for such accommodations, concessions, or compromises that might lead to settlement; p. 9. Further discussions between the parties is not required and each case will be decided on its own merits; p. 9 and fn. 5. Temple City No. 843 to the extent it discusses consideration of the factfinding report is overruled.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

For determining whether the charge states a prima facie case, the factual allegations in the charge are deemed true. However, factually unsupported legal conclusions in the charge need not be accepted as true; fn. 6.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

The charge failed to state a prima facie case of bypassing where no facts supporting the allegation that the statements were false, misleading or derogatory. Even if the statements were false, misleading and derogatory, the statements contain no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit. Rio Hondo Community College District (1980) PERB Decision No. 128, pp. 15-17.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board

For determining whether the charge states a prima facie case, the factual allegations in the charge are deemed true. However, factually unsupported legal conclusions in the charge need not be accepted as true; fn. 6.