Decision 1849M – County of Santa Cruz
SF-CE-111-M
Decision Date: August 16, 2006
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Association alleged that County violated the MMBA by unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment of the bargaining unit, denying the Association’s requests for information, discriminating against bargaining unit members and contracting out services.
Disposition: The Board dismissed this portion of the charge. The unilateral change charge was dismissed because: the County provided the information requested in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement; extra help employees are not part of the unit; while the County contemplated making changes to employees’ hours, no actual changes were made; and the County met with the Association to discuss layoff alternatives. The right to information charge was dismissed because the seniority list was provided as soon as the information was made available to the County. The discrimination charge was dismissed because the association failed to show that one doctor was dismissed for his protected activity and the charge did not demonstrate that any adverse action was taken against another doctor. The contracting out charge was dismissed because sufficient facts were not alleged to demonstrate that the County actually contracted out bargaining unit work.
Perc Vol: 30
Perc Index: 151
Decision Headnotes
300.01000 – In General
While it is clear that a doctor engaged in protected activities as an active officer of the Association, the charge fails to demonstrate the County laid him off because of his protected activities.
300.13000 – Holding Union Office
While it is clear that a doctor engaged in protected activities as an active officer of the Association, the charge fails to demonstrate the County laid him off because of his protected activities.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Charging party failed to allege nexus for layoff determination.
503.01000 – In General
Charging party did not demonstrate that County took adverse against employee, as she was not reprimanded or disciplined.
504.03000 – Departure from Past Practices or Procedures
Charging party failed to allege nexus for layoff determination as it was undisputed that the doctor was the least senior physician and was therefore slated to be laid off consistent with the prior MOU and the County’s past practice.
602.01000 – In General
Charging party failed to state a prima facie case of a unilateral change because County did not make unilateral change when it provided the information requested by the Association in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement; County also did not make unilateral change because it did in fact meet with the Association about layoff alternatives. County may have contemplated changing the hours of employees, but no employee hours were actually altered, therefore the Charging party failed to state a prima facie case of unilateral change.
604.01000 – In General
Charging party failed to state a prima facie case of a unilateral change because County did not make unilateral change when it provided the information requested by the Association in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement.
608.01000 – In General
Extra help employees are not permanent and thus are not part of the Association’s bargaining unit under their collective bargaining agreement.
608.04000 – Non-Bargaining Unit Employees; Inappropriate Bargaining Unit
Extra help employees are not permanent and thus are not part of the Association’s bargaining unit under their collective bargaining agreement.
1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated
Association did not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the County actually contracted out bargaining unit work. The union presented documentation that County approved money to contract with physicians, but charge did not indicate whether any physicians were actually hired.
1101.01000 – In General
Charging Party failed to state a prima facie case of unilateral change, discrimination, contracting out or a violation of the duty to provide information.