Decision 0873E – Charter Oak Unified School District

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.