Decision 1354H – Regents of the University of California (Bawal, et al.)

LA-CE-476-H

Decision Date: September 30, 1999

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 23
Perc Index: 30173

Decision Headnotes


504.14000 – Other/In General

Charging parties established some, but not all, elements of a prima facie case of retaliation. They engaged in protected activities, including the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE) campaign, and University management had at least general knowledge of those activities. Also, the University departed from the established Personnel Policies for Staff (PPSM) layoff procedures. However, charging parties failed to establish an inference that the layoffs were unlawfully motivated. Retaliatory failure to rehire is not established by an adverse impact theory (higher percentage of UPTE members laid off than percentage of UPTE members in unit) because actual unlawful motivation required. Also, no unlawful motive established because rehire decisions were not made by a single decisionmaker, but rather by separate decisionmakers in each unit, there was no evidence to support an inference of bias by any of those decisionmakers. No basis to infer unlawful motivation with regard to issuance of evaluation, since management acted in response to the facts it possessed at that time. The evaluation process continued independent of the protected activity.

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining

The University does has an obligation to meet and discuss effects of the reorganization decision on terms and conditions of employment with the nonexclusive representative; pp. 45-46, proposed dec; When the University issued layoff letters to all Department employees simultaneously and failed to provide requested information, the time and opportunity for meaningful meeting and discussing about how employees would be selected for layoff was past. The University failed to provide reasonable time for meeting and discussing before implementing its layoff and rehire program.

604.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
604.02000 – To Non-Exclusive Representatives

The University's responses to UPTE's information requests were insufficient.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02040 – Elimination of Positions

Employer has no duty to negotiate over reorganization of the department, including the decision to effectuate the reorganization via layoff. However, the employer must negotiate over effects of this decision.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02076 – Lay-Offs

Employer has no duty to negotiate over reorganization of the department, including the decision to effectuate the reorganization via layoff. However, the employer must negotiate over effects of this decision.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02112 – Reassignments

Employer has no duty to negotiate over reorganization of the department, including the decision to effectuate the reorganization via layoff. However, the employer must negotiate over effects of this decision.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02164 – Other

Employer has no duty to negotiate over reorganization of the department, including the decision to effectuate the reorganization via layoff. However, the employer must negotiate over effects of this decision.

1201.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS
1201.03000 – Back Pay; Interest

Based on a finding that the University should have given 30 days notice to employees prior to layoff, the University was ordered to make whole any charging parties adversely affected by the layoff and rehire process by paying them backpay as if the layoff and rehire process had occurred 30 days later than it did. This backpay shall include interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum.