Decision 1876H – Trustees of the California State University * * * SUPERSEDED by Trustees of the California State University (2009) PERB Decision No. 1876a-H
SA-CE-191-H
Decision Date: December 29, 2006
Decision Type: PERB Decision
* * * SUPERSEDED by Trustees of the California State University (2009) PERB Decision No. 1876a-H * * *
Description: The Board found CSU committed an unfair practice when it failed to provide requested information. The Board also found CSU committed an unfair practice when it consulted with an advisory group. Last, the Board reversed the ALJ’s finding that the university committed an unfair practice when it limited parking in a new structure to student only.
Disposition: Because parking location was not within scope, the university did not commit an unfair practice when it limited parking in a new structure to student only. With regard to the alleged failure to produce documents, since the documents sought were necessary and relevant, they were presumptively relevant. As such, the Board held the University committed an unfair practice when it failed to provide requested information. Last, because it was not appealed, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion that the university committed an unfair practice when it consulted with the Task Force.
Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 40
Decision Headnotes
604.01000 – In General
* * * SUPERSEDED by Trustees of the California State University (2009) PERB Decision No. 1876a-H, where, after the Court of Appeal reversed the Board’s finding that parking location is outside scope of representation because it did not involve the employment relationship, the Board found that under Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177, the employer did not need to bargain its decision to bar certain employees from parking in certain newly built parking structures. * * *
An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of representation. PERB uses a liberal standard, similar to a discovery-type standard, to determine relevance of the requested information. In defining the parameters of “necessary and relevant information” the Board has ruled that if the requested information pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining, it is presumptively relevant. Failure to provide such information is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. An exclusive representative is entitled to all information that is “necessary and relevant” to the discharge of its duty of representation. In defining the parameters of “necessary and relevant information” the Board has ruled that if the requested information pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining, it is presumptively relevant. Information that does not pertains immediately to a mandatory subject of bargaining, however, is not presumptively relevant. In such cases, absent the presumption, the burden falls on the charging party to show the information sought is relevant and necessary to the discharge of its duty of representation.