Decision 1030E – San Mateo County Community College District

Released time is a mandatory subject of bargaining and also a statutory right under EERA. Insistence upon negotiations on a mandatory subject of bargaining is not a per se violation of the duty to bargain under the theory of conditional bargaining; p. 18.

Use of comparative data unnecessary as Board finds a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith; p. 12.

The Board affirmed the ALJ's finding that the District during mediation violated EERA section 3543.5(e) when it refused to participate in the impasse procedures in good faith; p. 14.

The Board found that a negotiated provision on released time is not subject to a further level of review or scrutiny under EERA section 3543.1(c) when the unfair practice charge is filed after an agreement is in effect; pp. 16-17. The EERA provisions concerning released time are applicable at the onset of first time negotiations in order to ensure the ability to get to the negotiating table and in subsequent years when there are no controlling provisions of released time from prior agreements in operation; p. 17. Released time is a mandatory subject of bargaining and also a statutory right under EERA. Insistence upon negotiations on a mandatory subject of bargaining is not a per se violation of the duty to bargain under the theory of conditional bargaining; p. 18. Use of comparative data unnecessary as Board finds a per se violation to bargain under the theory of conditional bargaining; p. 18. Use of comparative data unnecessary as Board finds a per se violation

The District's failure to discuss in any meaningful way its position to keep the status quo regarding released time constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith; p. 12.

No violation under unlawful insistence to impasse because the Federation never put the District on notice that released time should not be included in the CBA or that it would not bargain over released time because it had a statutory right to reasonable released time; pp. 19-20. An employer can implement both mandatory and nonmandatory proposals contained in its last, best and final offer except for those items that concern statutory rights.

Under San Dieguito Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 194, a continuing violation occurs if the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the six months statute of limitations. The District's refusal to negotiate regarding released time was consistent and continuing throughout negotiations and impasse proceedings; p. 12, fn. 6.

Although the Board agrees that the District's statement of exceptions could have been better defined with clearer references made to the record, the Board found the District's brief to be in substantial compliance with PERB Regulation 32300; p. 11.