Decision 1848S – State of California (Department of Corrections) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M
SA-CE-1452-S
Decision Date: August 9, 2006
Decision Type: PERB Decision
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M * * *
Description: The charge alleged that the State of California (Department of Corrections) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act by engaging in bad faith bargaining, unilaterally changing staffing levels, and refusing to provide requested information.
Disposition: The Board partially dismissed the charge because staffing levels are not a subject within the scope of representation and there was no evidence that the Union demanded to bargain the effects of the change of staffing levels. Some of the charges were also dismissed as untimely.
Perc Vol: 30
Perc Index: 150
Decision Headnotes
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M. * * *
No prima facie showing of bad faith or surface bargaining because staffing levels and the level of services to be provided are not a subject within the scope of representation.
601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *
No prima facie violation of State’s duty to bargain effects where there is no evidence that the Union demanded to bargain the effects of the change in staffing levels or submitted proposals addressing safety concerns.
601.04000 – When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *
No prima facie violation of State’s duty to bargain effects where there is no evidence that the Union demanded to bargain the effects of the change in staffing levels or submitted proposals addressing safety concerns.
608.01000 – In General
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, where the Board held that a union does not need to demand to bargain effects if the employer does not provide reasonable advance notice of the employer’s decision. * * *
No prima facie violation of State’s duty to bargain effects where there is no evidence that the Union demanded to bargain the effects of the change in staffing levels or submitted proposals addressing safety concerns.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M. * * *
The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge.