Decision 1313S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)

SA-CE-947-S

Decision Date: January 29, 1999

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 23
Perc Index: 30055

Decision Headnotes

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.15000 – Other

Employer's strict application of contract provision cannot be considered discrimination.

505.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES
505.11000 – Legitimate Business Purpose/Business Necessity

Employer's strict application of contract provision cannot be considered discrimination.

505.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES
505.13000 – Other

Employer's strict application of contract provision cannot be considered discrimination.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.07000 – Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession

When an employer does not provide notice and the opportunity to bargain over an alleged change, the exclusive representative's failure to pursue bargaining is not considered a waiver; p. 6. When an alleged unilateral change has already been implemented, or if the employer has already made a firm decision to implement the change, the exclusive representative does not waive its right to bargain by not pursuing negotiations; pp. 6-7. The Union's cancellation of a bargaining session and decision not to pursue bargaining did not constitute a waiver of the right to bargain, and did not bar the Union from filing an unfair practice alleging an unlawful unilateral change; p. 7.

1402.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER
1402.05000 – By Delaying or Failing to Request Negotiations

When an employer does not provide notice and the opportunity to bargain over an alleged change, the exclusive representative's failure to pursue bargaining is not considered a waiver; p. 6. When an alleged unilateral change has already been implemented, or if the employer has already made a firm decision to implement the change, the exclusive representative does not waive its right to bargain by not pursuing negotiations; pp. 6-7. The Union's cancellation of a bargaining session and decision not to pursue bargaining did not constitute a waiver of the right to bargain, and did not bar the Union from filing an unfair practice alleging an unlawful unilateral change; p. 7.

1404.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION
1404.01000 – In General

In interpreting contractual provisions, it is unnecessary to look beyond the plain language of the contract when that language is clear and unambiguous, citing Marysville Joint Unified School District; p. 3. When contract language is found to be ambiguous, the Board looks to bargaining history and the past practice of the parties to ascertain the meaning of the language; p. 3. The pertinent contract language in this case is susceptible to differing interpretations and therefore cannot be considered clear and unambiguous. As a result, the bargaining history and the practice of the parties must be reviewed to ascertain the meaning of the provision; p. 4.