Decision 1326E – Chino Valley Unified School District

LA-CE-3922

Decision Date: April 14, 1999

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 23
Perc Index: 30097

Decision Headnotes

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.02000 – Issuance of Complaint

The Board reversed the dismissal and found that the Union had stated a prima facie case of a violation of EERA section 3542.5(c) and directed that a complaint be issued in this case; p. 7.

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

The District's action in altering the tentative agreements reached by the parties in negotiations did not constitute an unlawful unilateral change in violation of EERA since the agreements which the District changed were tentative and had not been ratified by the trustees and, therefore, had not been implemented with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit members; p. 6.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General

In general, the Board has held that one indicator of bad faith bargaining is insufficient to demonstrate a prima facie case of unlawful conduct, citing Regents of the University of California (1985) PERB Decision No. 520-H; p. 5. In this case, the parties on two occasions specifically discussed the authority of the District's lead negotiator. These discussions culminated in the District's endorsement of its negotiator's authority. Under these circumstances, the District's subsequent revelation that it had assigned a negotiator who did not possess sufficient bargaining authority constitutes a separate indicator of bad faith bargaining. By that conduct, the District significantly delayed and thwarted the bargaining process; pp. 5-6. Reneging on tentative agreements and sending a negotiator without authority are multiple indicators of bad faith conduct by the District Reneging on tentative agreements and sending a negotiator without authority are multiple indicators of bad faith conduct by the District

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.07000 – Inconsistent Position Taken; W/ds or Renege on Tentative Agreement

By reneging on tentative agreements, the District demonstrated regressive bargaining techniques, which is one indicator of bad faith bargaining; p. 5.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.18000 – Lack of Sufficient Authority

In this case, the parties on two occasions specifically discussed the authority of the District's lead negotiator. These discussions culminated in the District's endorsement of its negotiator's authority. Under these circumstances, the District's subsequent revelation that it had assigned a negotiator who did not possess sufficient bargaining authority constitutes a separate indicator of bad faith bargaining. By that conduct, the District significantly delayed and thwarted the bargaining process; pp. 5-6.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

Based on a review of the original and amended charges, the Board concluded that the Union has demonstrated multiple indicators of bad faith conduct by the District sufficient to state a prima facie case of an EERA violation; p. 5.

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General

The Board reversed the dismissal and found that the Union had stated a prima facie case of a violation of EERA section 3543.5(c) and directed that a complaint be issued in this case; p. 7.