Decision 1967S – State of California (Department of Corrections)

The Board rejected the State’s argument that neither the Dills Act nor the MOU create barriers that prevent CDCR from addressing “life and death” matters in the prison system, and it had no obligation to bargain with UAPD before entering into a stipulation or consent decree. In the court case, the judge refused to set aside an order as a bar to Dills Act claims and the State itself acknowledged that it did not intend for the order to release it from its bargaining obligation.

The State did not have a duty to negotiate about the decision to implement a new review process even though the decision impacted wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. When the right of the State to manage its operations and achieve its mission by providing constitutionally required health care for inmates in the California prison system is balanced against the benefits to be achieved under the duty to bargain the decision with the union, the balance tipped in favor of the State.

The State did not have a duty to negotiate about the decision to implement a new review process even though the decision impacted wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. When the right of the State to manage its operations and achieve its mission by providing constitutionally required health care for inmates in the California prison system is balanced against the benefits to be achieved under the duty to bargain the decision with the union, the balance tipped in favor of the State.

The State did not have a duty to negotiate about the decision to implement a new review process even though the decision impacted wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. When the right of the State to manage its operations and achieve its mission by providing constitutionally required health care for inmates in the California prison system is balanced against the benefits to be achieved under the duty to bargain the decision with the union, the balance tipped in favor of the State.

The State did not have a duty to negotiate about the decision to implement a new review process even though the decision impacted wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. When the right of the State to manage its operations and achieve its mission by providing constitutionally required health care for inmates in the California prison system is balanced against the benefits to be achieved under the duty to bargain the decision with the union, the balance tipped in favor of the State.

Deferral not appropriate here because the State failed to: (1) raise the affirmative defense of deferral in a timely manner; and (2) meet the requirements for deferral set out in Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (1980) PERB Order No. Ad-81a. The Board rejected the State’s argument that the complaint “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” noting that it was overly broad and did not reasonably put either the Board or opposing counsel on notice of the deferral claim.