Decision 1260S – State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) (California Department of Forestry Firefighters)

In a unilateral change case, the statute of limitations contained in section 3514.5 begins to run when the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent's clear intent to implement the alleged charge; p. 9, citing The Regents of the University of California (1990) PERB Decision No. 826-H. State's advisory to union that it intended to award new benefits contract, which did not provide union with any information concerning the specific aspects of the new plan or any information comparing the old and new plans, was not actual or constructive notice for purposes of computing the six-month period.

In order to prevail on a unilateral change charge, the charging party must establish that the employer, without providing the exclusive representative with notice or the opportunity to bargain, breached or altered the parties' written agreement or established past practice concerning a matter within the scope of representation and that the change has a generalized effect or continuing impact on the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members; p. 10, citing Pajaro Valley Unfied School District (1978) PERB Decision No. 51 and Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 196.

In a unilateral change case, the statute of limitations contained in section 3514.5 begins to run when the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent's clear intent to implement the alleged charge; p. 9, citing The Regents of the University of California (1990) PERB Decision No. 826-H. State's advisory to union that it intended to award new benefits contract, which did not provide union with any information concerning the specific aspects of the new plan or any information concerning the old and new plans, was not actual or constructive notice for purposes of computing the six-month period; p. 10.

A change in health benefits plans is negotiable only if the change has a material or significant effect or impact on the actual benefits received by employees; p. 12. It is not enough to theorize or speculate that a change in benefits could impact employees, but an actual effect on employees caused by the benefit-related change must be shown by the charging party by a preponderance of the evidence; p. 12 and p. 14. The actual benefits received by employees pursuant to the CBA, even if not specifically listed in the current or former CBA, represents the status quo which the state is bound to maintain and any unilateral change resulting in a significant impact on these actual benefits, may violate the Dills Act; p. 13. Modest impact ($9 per employee per year) does not constitute significant impact of union care benefits; p. 19. Modest impact ($9 per employee per year) does not constitute significant impact of union care benefits; p. 19.