Decision 1891M – City of Los Altos

SF-CE-331-M

Decision Date: March 14, 2007

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 31
Perc Index: 74

Decision Headnotes

401.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS
401.01000 – In General; Prima Facie Case.

The City’s policy of refusing to provide disciplinary information absent a request by the union and consent by the employee involved did not constitute interference because the union failed to demonstrate that the City's conduct resulted in any harm to employee rights.

401.00000 – EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS
401.04000 – Access – Union Right

The City’s policy of refusing to provide disciplinary information absent a request by the union and consent by the employee involved did not constitute interference because the union failed to demonstrate that the City's conduct resulted in any harm to employee rights.

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

The union’s amended charge stated that the City’s policy relative to disciplinary information was implemented "without notice to, participation by, or consent of the Union." Therefore, notwithstanding the union’s characterization of the case, the Board agent was correct in analyzing whether or not implementation of the policy constituted a unilateral change.

604.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
604.01000 – In General

The union was entitled to information that was necessary and relevant to discharging its duty to represent unit employees, not to all information that could conceivably aid the union in its representation duties. PERB has held that there is no duty to provide information absent a request, thus the Union’s concession that it had no pending request for identified information was pivotal, because without a request, Local 350 had no right to the disciplinary information which they argued they were entitled to as a matter of course.

604.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
604.04000 – Confidentiality; Privacy

Even if there were a proper request by the union for disciplinary information related to employees in the unit, that request would still have to be considered in light of the privacy considerations of the employees subject to discipline.