Decision 1724M – City of Modesto

SA-CE-193-M

Decision Date: December 15, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 36

Decision Headnotes

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.06000 – 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.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
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.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
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.

1402.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER
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.