Decision 1895E – Newark Unified School District

Although the collective bargaining agreement language waives the right to negotiate the health carrier, with the parties agreeing instead to consult, the Compensation Article was subject to negotiation during the 2003-2004 school year negotiations as a re-opener. Since the health care carrier language in dispute is part of the Compensation Article, the District should have negotiated the Association's re-opener proposal related to health carriers, even though the proposal did not include an express repudiation of the contract’s waiver language.

he District violated EERA when it failed to meet and negotiate in good faith by refusing, during the 2003-2004 re-opener negotiations, to negotiate concerning the selection of a health insurance carrier. The fact that the health insurance carrier language was contained in the Compensation Article, required the District to negotiate the Association's proposal related to that article; the District did not act in good faith in advancing its positions related to the negotiability of the health care carrier and waiver language.

The District violated EERA when it failed to meet and negotiate in good faith by refusing, during the 2003-2004 re-opener negotiations, to negotiate concerning the selection of a health insurance carrier. The fact that the health insurance carrier language was contained in the Compensation Article, required the District to negotiate the Association's proposal related to that article; the District did not act in good faith in advancing its positions related to the negotiability of the health care carrier and waiver language. Although the pre-paid legal services plan was negotiable, the District did not unilaterally implement the program, because the program did not have a generalized and continued impact on the bargaining unit. The Association's proposal regarding the make up and dissemination of the STAR results is not negotiable and impinged upon managerial rights. Although the collective bargaining agreement language waives the right to negotiate the health carrier, with the parties agreeing instead to consult, the Compensation Article was subject to negotiation during the 2003-2004 school year negotiations as a re-opener. Since the health care carrier language in dispute is part of the Compensation Article, the District should have negotiated the Association's re-opener proposal related to health carriers, even though the proposal did not include an express repudiation of the contract’s waiver language.

The Association's proposal regarding the make up and dissemination of the STAR results is not negotiable and impinged upon managerial rights.

The District violated EERA when it failed to meet and negotiate in good faith by refusing, during the 2003-2004 re-opener negotiations, to negotiate concerning the selection of a health insurance carrier. The fact that the health insurance carrier language was contained in the Compensation Article, required the District to negotiate the Association's proposal related to that article; the District did not act in good faith in advancing its positions related to the negotiability of the health care carrier and waiver language. Although the collective bargaining agreement language waives the right to negotiate the health carrier, with the parties agreeing instead to consult, the Compensation Article was subject to negotiation during the 2003-2004 school year negotiations as a re-opener. Since the health care carrier language in dispute is part of the Compensation Article, the District should have negotiated the Association's re-opener proposal related to health carriers, even though the proposal did not include an express repudiation of the contract’s waiver language.

Although the pre-paid legal services plan was negotiable, the District did not unilaterally implement the program, because the program did not have a generalized and continued impact on the bargaining unit.

A pre-paid legal services plan relates to an enumerated subject under Gov. Code Section 3543.2, and therefore the Board need not analyze whether pre-paid legal services are akin to insurance. Although the pre-paid legal services plan was negotiable, the District did not unilaterally implement the program, because the program did not have a generalized and continued impact on the bargaining unit. The Association's proposal regarding the make up and dissemination of the STAR results is not negotiable and impinged upon managerial rights.

The Association's proposal regarding the make up and dissemination of the STAR results is not negotiable and impinged upon managerial rights.

The District violated EERA when it failed to meet and negotiate in good faith by refusing, during the 2003-2004 re-opener negotiations, to negotiate concerning the selection of a health insurance carrier. The fact that the health insurance carrier language was contained in the Compensation Article, required the District to negotiate the Association's proposal related to that article; the District did not act in good faith in advancing its positions related to the negotiability of the health care carrier and waiver language. Although the collective bargaining agreement language waives the right to negotiate the health carrier, with the parties agreeing instead to consult, the Compensation Article was subject to negotiation during the 2003-2004 school year negotiations as a re-opener. Since the health care carrier language in dispute is part of the Compensation Article, the District should have negotiated the Association's re-opener proposal related to health carriers, even though the proposal did not include an express repudiation of the contract’s waiver language.

Not all payroll deductions are negotiable. Rather, the relationship of the deduction to an enumerated subject in EERA section 3543.2 must be demonstrated. In this case, that relationship has been demonstrated, because the payroll deduction is for a legal expense program which falls squarely within the definitions set forth in EERA.

A pre-paid legal services plan relates to an enumerated subject under Gov. Code Section 3543.2, and therefore the Board need not analyze whether pre-paid legal services are akin to insurance. The Association's proposal regarding the make up and dissemination of the STAR results is not negotiable and impinged upon managerial rights.

While the Board finds that the proposed decision correctly concluded that health carrier language was negotiable as part of the Compensation Article, the Board will not speculate about the intent or nature of the Association's proposal in reaching that conclusion.

While the Board finds that the proposed decision correctly concluded that health carrier language was negotiable as part of the Compensation Article, the Board will not speculate about the intent or nature of the Association's proposal in reaching that conclusion.