Decision 1225E – Sonoma County Office of Education

SF-CE-1827

Decision Date: November 4, 1997

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 22
Perc Index: 29005

Decision Headnotes

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02018 – Class Size

Class size is expressly referred to in EERA's definition of scope of representation. EERA section 3543.2; p. 8, proposed dec.

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

To prevail on a complaint of unilateral change, the charging party must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the employer breached or otherwise altered the parties' written agreement or its own established past practice; (2) such action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the change is not merely an isolated breach of the contract, but amounts to a change of policy (i.e., having a generalized effect or continuing impact on bargaining members' terms and conditions of employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation. (Proposed decision at 7-8, citing Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196; Pajaro, supra; and Davis Unified School District, et al. (1980) PERB Decision No. 116. Unified School District, et al. (1980) PERB Decision No. 116.

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.05000 – Answer or Other Defense/Waiver

PERB Regulation 32644 imposes on a respondent the duty to set forth any affirmative defense in its answer; An affirmative defense not raised in the answer will not be considered by the Administrative Law Judge; p. 10, proposed dec.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

PERB Regulation 32644 imposes on a respondent the duty to set forth any affirmative defense in its answer; An affirmative defense not raised in the answer will not be considered by the Administrative Law Judge; p. 10, proposed dec.