Decision 1969E – Beverly Hills Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H and County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M
LA-CE-5034-E
Decision Date: July 8, 2008
Decision Type: PERB Decision
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H and County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M * * *
Description: The Association alleged that the District breached its duty to bargain in good faith by: (1) not negotiating over the effects of a test release policy on teachers’ work hours before implementing the policy and (2) refusing to meet and confer over the effects of the policy after implementation.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the partial dismissal of the charge. The charge failed to state a prima facie case of unilateral change because it contained no facts establishing an actual change in teachers’ workday or duty-free time. The charge failed to state a prima facie case of refusal to bargain because Charging Party’s bargaining demand did not identify any negotiable subjects or effects.
Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 115
Decision Headnotes
601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, where the Board held that a demand to bargain only needs to identify potential prospective effects, not actual effects, and by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain need not identify specific effects. * * *
District had no duty to bargain over decision to adopt policy requiring teachers to return student examinations upon parent request but did have duty to bargain over any reasonably foreseeable effects of policy on subjects within scope of representation. Charge failed to allege facts establishing that policy had negotiable effect on teachers’ work hours.
601.04000 – When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, where the Board held that a demand to bargain only needs to identify potential prospective effects, not actual effects, and by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain need not identify specific effects. * * *
Demand to meet and confer over negotiable effects of a non-negotiable decision must identify those subjects within the scope of representation impacted by the decision as well as the specific effects over which the union wishes to bargain. Demand letter requesting to bargain over “the impact and effects of requiring tests to be released” failed to identify negotiable subjects or effects and therefore district had no duty to meet and confer with union over effects of test release policy.
1000.02064 – Hours of Work
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, where the Board held that a demand to bargain only needs to identify potential prospective effects, not actual effects, and by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain need not identify specific effects. * * *
To establish a negotiable change in teachers’ work hours resulting from a non-negotiable decision, charge must allege facts establishing an actual impact on work hours, either by showing an increase in instructional time or a decrease in preparation time that has the effect of lengthening the workday or shortening existing duty-free time. Charge failed to allege facts establishing that teachers’ workday was increased by district’s adoption of policy requiring return of student examinations upon parent request.
1000.02107 – Preparation Time
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, where the Board held that a demand to bargain only needs to identify potential prospective effects, not actual effects, and by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M, where the Board held that a request to bargain need not identify specific effects. * * *
To establish a negotiable change in teachers’ work hours resulting from a non-negotiable decision, charge must allege facts establishing an actual impact on work hours, either by showing an increase in instructional time or a decrease in preparation time that has the effect of lengthening the workday or shortening existing duty-free time. Charge failed to allege facts establishing that teachers’ existing preparation time was insufficient for them to create new examinations that might be required as a result of district’s policy requiring return of student examinations upon parent request.
1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H and County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M. * * *
Board applies de novo standard when reviewing Board agent’s dismissal of an unfair practice charge. In using the phrase “free of prejudicial error” when adopting a Board agent’s warning and dismissal letters as the decision of the Board itself, PERB did not intend to establish an abuse of discretion standard of review.
1107.14000 – Informational Briefs
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H and County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M. * * *
Board has discretion to accept reply briefs on appeal when briefs would aid the Board in its review of the underlying dispute, such as by raising new issues, discussing new case law, or formulating new defenses to allegations. Board exercised its discretion to accept reply briefs when briefs contained majority of parties’ arguments on disputed issue.