Decision 2001M – Omnitrans
LA-CE-371-M
Decision Date: January 30, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board dismissed an unfair practice charge in which the Charging Party alleged Omnitrans breached its duty to meet and confer in good faith when it unilaterally implemented an updated employee rulebook.
Disposition: The Board held that the Charging Party failed to state a prima facie case under the MMBA because it failed to plead sufficient facts to establish it was denied notice and an adequate opportunity to bargain over the changes to the updated employee rulebook.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 34
Decision Headnotes
602.01000 – In General
Unilateral changes are considered “per se” violations if: (1) the employer breaches or alters the parties’ written agreement or its own established past practice; (2) such action is taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to bargain over the change; (3) the change is not merely an isolated breach of the contract, but amounts to a change of policy (i.e., it has a generalized effect or continuing impact upon bargaining unit members’ terms and conditions of employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation.
602.02000 – Prior Notice and Opportunity to Bargain
The obligation to meet and negotiate in good faith is one that must be fulfilled before implementing changes to matters within the scope of representation. Thus, absent a waiver by the exclusive representative, an employer violates its duty to meet and confer in good faith when it makes a unilateral change prior to the completion of bargaining.
1101.01000 – In General
PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. In unilateral change cases, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date a charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change in policy, provided that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent. The charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. In unilateral change cases, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date a charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change in policy, provided that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent. The charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed.