Decision 1724M – City of Modesto
SA-CE-193-M
Decision Date: December 15, 2004
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The association alleged that the city changed its practice of providing health benefit parity among bargaining units.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge because the alleged past practice of benefit parity does not supersede the clear language of the MOU which provides a schedule of health care premiums for the duration of the MOU and a zipper clause that precludes bargaining on matters covered by the MOU absent mutual agreement of the parties.
Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 36
Decision Headnotes
602.06000 – Change in Past Practice
An alleged past practice of health benefit parity does not supersede the clear language of the MOU, which provides a schedule of employer health care premiums for the duration of the MOU and a zipper clause that precludes bargaining on matters covered in the MOU absent the mutual agreement of the parties. Therefore, the Association has not shown that the City changed its policy.
608.05000 – Past Practice; Maintenance of Status Quo
An alleged past practice of health benefit parity does not supersede the clear language of the MOU, which provides a schedule of employer health care premiums for the duration of the MOU and a zipper clause that precludes bargaining on matters covered in the MOU absent the mutual agreement of the parties. Therefore, the Association has not shown that the City changed its policy.
608.07000 – Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession
This case is distinguishable from Los Angeles Community College District (1982) PERB Decision No. 252 where the contractual zipper clause did not allow the employer from unilaterally changing shifts without bargaining where the shifts were set forth in the contract. Under the zipper clause, the City is not obligated to negotiate a change in health benefit premiums.
1402.03000 – By Contract/Zipper Clauses/Management Rights Clauses
An alleged past practice of health benefit parity does not supersede the clear language of the MOU, which provides a schedule of employer health care premiums for the duration of the MOU and a zipper clause that precludes bargaining on matters covered in the MOU absent the mutual agreement of the parties. Therefore, the Association has not shown that the City changed its policy. This case is distinguishable from Los Angeles Community College District (1982) PERB Decision No. 252 in which the contractual zipper clause did not allow the employer from unilaterally changing shifts without bargaining where the shifts were set forth in the contract. Under the zipper clause, the City is not obligated to negotiate a change in health benefit premiums.