Decision 1225E – Sonoma County Office of Education
SF-CE-1827
Decision Date: November 4, 1997
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: County appealed proposed decision finding violation of EERA by increase in class size without providing Union opportunity to bargain over the Impact of the unilateral change.
Disposition: Violation found. County ordered to cease and desist and to negotiate with Union over change in class size.
Perc Vol: 22
Perc Index: 29005
Decision Headnotes
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.
602.01000 – 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.
1103.05000 – 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.
1503.03000 – 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.