Decision 1284S – State of California (Employment Development Department)

SA-CE-930-S

Decision Date: September 16, 1998

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description: Employee organization appealed dismissal of charge end complaint against the State for unilaterally increasing number of determination interviews scheduled for certain employees.

Disposition: Dismissed. Board adopted Board agent’s decision and dismissed charge and complaint as no change in status quo had been demonstrated.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 22
Perc Index: 29156

Decision Headnotes

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02159 – Workloads

Workload changes are a negotiable subject; pp. 21-22, proposed dec.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.06000 – Change in Past Practice

No unilateral change shown even if overall number of interviews scheduled per day per employee was increased pursuant to federal regulations because there was no showing of a change in workload; nor was there a showing that new tasks were to be performed; pp. 23-24, proposed dec. No unilateral change because no showing that employer's actions altered the status quo. Specifically, CSEA failed to show that there was a uniform practice of assigning a specific number of Det interviews per day to each EPR. Instead, the evidence revealed that there were variations among employees in a single office and variations among offices; pp. 23-24, proposed dec. An increase from approximately 12 interviews per day to 14 did not constitute a change in "quality and kind" under Oakland. constitute a change in "quality and kind" under Oakland.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.05000 – Past Practice; Maintenance of Status Quo

No unilateral change shown even if overall number of interviews scheduled per day per employee was increased pursuant to federal regulations because there was no showing of a change in workload; nor was there a showing that new tasks were to be performed; pp. 23-24, proposed dec. No unilateral change because no showing that employer's actions altered the status quo. Specifically, CSEA failed to show that there was a uniform practice of assigning a specific number of Det interviews per day to each EPR. Instead, the evidence revealed that there were vraiations among employees in a single office and variations among offices; pp. 23-24, proposed dec. An increase from approximately 12 interviews per day to 14 did not constitute a change in "quality and kind" under Oakland. constitute a change in "quality and kind" under Oakland.