Decision 1976E – Berkeley Unified School District

SF-CE-2597-E

Decision Date: September 9, 2008

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 138

Decision Headnotes

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

Charge failed to state a prima facie case of refusal to bargain as a matter of law because parties’ ability to rescind collective bargaining agreement provision based on mutual mistake of fact does not create a duty to bargain over a replacement provision.

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.04000 – When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand

Parties’ ability to rescind collective bargaining agreement provision based on mutual mistake of fact does not create a duty to bargain over a replacement provision.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.01000 – In General

Even if charging party knew or should have known of the parties’ mutual mistake of fact approximately one year before charge was filed, six-month statute of limitations did not begin to run at that time because PERB does not recognize mutual mistake as an unfair practice. Limitation period began to run when respondent refused to re-open negotiations over collective bargaining agreement provision alleged to be the result of the mutual mistake.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period

Even if charging party knew or should have known of the parties’ mutual mistake of fact approximately one year before charge was filed, six-month statute of limitations did not begin to run at that time because PERB does not recognize mutual mistake as an unfair practice. Limitation period began to run when respondent refused to re-open negotiations over collective bargaining agreement provision alleged to be the result of the mutual mistake.

1404.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION
1404.01000 – In General

PERB recognizes legal significance of rescission based on mistake of fact only when: (1) mistake is unilateral and (2) rescission is raised as a defense to a bad faith bargaining charge. PERB does not recognize mutual mistake of fact as a defense to an unfair practice charge or as the source of an affirmative duty to bargain.