Decision 1863E – El Centro Elementary School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875 * * *
LA-CE-4859-E
Decision Date: November 13, 2006
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board affirmed the dismissal of an unfair practice charge in which the District allegedly altered the terms regarding health benefits for retirees in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.
Disposition: Health care benefits for retirees are a permissive subject of bargaining because retirees are not “employees” subject to the protection of EERA. Further, since an employer does not have a duty to bargain permissive subjects, it is not an unfair practice to unilaterally repudiate a contractual provision containing a permissive subject.
Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 10
Decision Headnotes
200.01000 – In General
OVERRULED IN PART on other grounds by Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875.
Retirees, because they are no longer “employees” as defined in EERA section 3541.5(a), are not subject to the protection of EERA.
602.01000 – In General
OVERRULED IN PART by Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, to extent decision held that a party cannot violate its duty to bargain in good faith when it repudiates a collectively bargained provision on a non-mandatory subject during the term of the agreement.
A permissive subject is not transformed into a mandatory subject solely on the basis that it is incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, it is not an unfair practice for an employer to repudiate a contractual provision containing a permissive subject of bargaining because the employer does not have a duty under EERA to negotiate that term.
602.03000 – Change In Policy
OVERRULED IN PART by Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, to extent decision held that a party cannot violate its duty to bargain in good faith when it repudiates a collectively bargained provision on a non-mandatory subject during the term of the agreement.
A permissive subject is not transformed into a mandatory subject solely on the basis that it is incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, it is not an unfair practice for an employer to repudiate a contractual provision containing a permissive subject of bargaining because the employer does not have a duty under EERA to negotiate that term.
1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated
OVERRULED IN PART by Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, to extent decision held that a party cannot violate its duty to bargain in good faith when it repudiates a collectively bargained provision on a non-mandatory subject during the term of the agreement.
A permissive subject is not transformed into a mandatory subject solely on the basis that it is incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, it is not an unfair practice for an employer to repudiate a contractual provision containing a permissive subject of bargaining because the employer does not have a duty under EERA to negotiate that term.
1000.02121 – Retirement
OVERRULED IN PART on other grounds by Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875.
Retirees, because they are no longer “employees” as defined in EERA section 3541.5(a), are not subject to the protection of EERA. Consequently, medical benefits for these individuals are permissive subjects of bargaining.