Decision 1455E – San Diego Community College District
Decision Date: July 31, 2001
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 25
Perc Index: 32099
602.03000 – Contract Repudiation or Breach
Proposals which define or expand a union's right of access are negotiable. Here the parties were governed by a provision from the previous exclusive representative's contract with the District which set forth a joint determination of reasonable regulation of the intrasite mail system. The appropriate test here was whether the District had committed a unilateral change by refusing to deliver certain memos via the system; p. 2, warning letter. AFT had not demonstrated that the District implemented a change in policy. The CBA provided that no materials could be sent through the system which were defamatory of members or representatives of either party. The memorandums which the District refused to deliver attacked the good name or reputation of District representatives, and therefore the District was under no obligation to circulate them; pp. 2-3, warning letter. Claims that the District committed a unilateral change by imposing its own remedy of refusal to deliver, that the District waived its right to prohibit delivery by not asking for a meeting with the Union to discuss the refused delivery, and that the District should have delivered the letters and filed a grievance over their defamatory nature, were rejected. The issue was not whether the District might have chosen another method to resolve the matter. The question was whether the charging party established a prima facie case of a unilateral change. Here the subject materials were defamatory, and charging party was not permitted to use the intrasite mail service to transmit them; pp. 1-2, dismissal letter.
602.06000 – Change in Past Practice
An employer does not commit an unlawful unilateral change when its actions are consistent with previously unenforced provision of the collective bargaining agreement; p. 3. Marysville Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 314 does not apply here, because there were no prior incidents from which AFT could claim a waiver of the unenforced right upon which a unilateral change would be based. There was no unilateral change; the District was instead enforcing the provisions of the CBA, albeit for the first time; p. 3.