Decision 1392S – State of California (Department of Corrections)

SA-CE-1111-S

Decision Date: June 26, 2000

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 24
Perc Index: 31113

Decision Headnotes

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.05000 – Impact and Extent

Supervising cooks were involved in supervision training and assignment of food preparation work. The quantity of supervision work was decreased and is not negotiable under Eureka. However, correctional officers began to perform training in food preparation, and began assignment of food preparation work, despite the fact that supervising cooks had done this work exclusively in the past. The transfer of work in these two areas constituted violations under Eureka. The Board has yet to deal with a situation where there is a severe redistribution of overlapping duties from unit to nonunit employees. In light of its finding here that nonunit employees began to perform duties previously performed exclusively by unit employees, it was again unnecessary for the Board to address the question of severe redistribution.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.06000 – Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative

Changes which merely transfer existing functions and duties from one classification to another involve no overriding management prerogative.

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

Department's claim that Association waived its right to bargain transfers of work between units in a general management rights clause was rejected. The waiver of a right to bargain must be clear and unmistakable. Here the agreement between the parties contained no language which expressly reserved to Department the right to transfer duties from one bargaining unit to another without negotiating the matter with appropriate employee representative.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02147 – Transfer of Work Out of Unit

Department's theory of overlapping duties was insufficient defense to the claim that it had violated the Dills Act. Under new staffing pattern, supervising cooks were virtually eliminated from any meaningful participation in the food service process. A diminution of this magnitude evidences a change in the quantity and kind of the duties of the respective employees and constitutes a unilateral change in an established policy. Supervising cooks were involved in supervision training and assignment of food preparation work. The quantity of supervision work was decreased and is not negotiable under Eureka. However, correctional officers began to perform training in food preparation, and began assignment of food preparation work, despite the fact that supervising cooks had done this work exclusively in the past. The transfer of work in these two areas constituted violations under Eureka. The Board has yet to deal with a situation where there is a severe redistribution of overlapping duties from unit to nonunit employees. In light of its finding here that nonunit employees began to perform duties previously performed exclusively by unit employees, it was again unnecessary for the Board to address the question of severe redistribution.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period

Here there was no credible evidence to support the contention that the Association's knowledge of staffing patterns in satellite kitchens at California State Prison Sacramento, which were at issue in another unfair practice charge, made the Association aware of future staffing patterns in other prisons. There was also no evidence that anyone at the Association who had the authority to act on behalf of the organization received actual notice or had constructive knowledge of the proposed staffing patterns more than six months before the charge was filed.

1201.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS
1201.08000 – Other

Board found that this case was not about "staffing patterns" but rather about the transfer of work. Board recognized that there may be managerial decisions concerning staffing patterns that would not be negotiable, even though their effects might be negotiable. Although the staffing pattern proposed by the Administrative Law Judge would presumably remedy the transfer of work, it could not be said that it was the only remedy available. There might be other elections which the Department could make that would keep food preparation assignment and training work from being transferred out of the supervising cooks' unit. Such decisions are not appropriately mandated by the Board.

1203.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; BARGAINING ORDERS; REMEDIES AGAINST EMPLOYERS
1203.01000 – In General

Board found that this case was not about "staffing patterns" but rather about the transfer of work. Board recognized that there may be managerial decisions concerning staffing patterns that would not be negotiable, even though their effects might be negotiable. Although the staffing pattern proposed by the Administrative Law Judge would presumably remedy the transfer of work, it could not be said that it was the only remedy available. There might be other elections which the Department could make that would keep food preparation assignment and training work from being transferred out of the supervising cooks' unit. Such decisions are not appropriately mandated by the Board.

1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.10000 – Other Affirmative Relief

Board found that this case was not about "staffing patterns" but rather about the transfer of work. Board recognized that there may be managerial decisions concerning staffing patterns that would not be negotiable, even though their effects might be negotiable. Although the staffing pattern proposed by the Administrative Law Judge would presumably remedy the transfer of work, it could not be said that it was the only remedy available. There might be other elections which the Department could make that would keep food preparation assignment and training work from being transferred out of the supervising cooks' unit. Such decisions are not appropriately mandated by the Board.