Decision 1976E – Berkeley Unified School District
SF-CE-2597-E
Decision Date: September 9, 2008
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Federation alleged that the formula for funding the District’s state-mandated reserve for economic uncertainties contained in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement was the product of a mutual mistake of fact and therefore the District had a duty to re-open negotiations over the formula.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the dismissal of the charge. The charge failed to state a prima facie case of refusal to bargain as a matter of law because the parties’ ability to rescind a contract provision based on mutual mistake of fact does not create a duty to bargain over a replacement provision.
Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 138
Decision Headnotes
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.
601.04000 – 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.
1101.01000 – 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.
1101.03000 – 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.
1404.01000 – 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.