Decision 2041M – City and County of San Francisco

SF-CO-129-M

Decision Date: June 29, 2009

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 120

Decision Headnotes

750.00000 – EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE
750.01000 – In General

The MMBA authorizes public agencies to adopt reasonable rules and regulations for the administration of employer-employee relations, including additional procedures for the resolution of disputes involving wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, and any other matters that are necessary to carry out state law. However, the enforcement of a local rule will be denied if it conflicts with the MMBA or its fundamental purposes.

750.00000 – EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE
750.01000 – In General

Mandatory binding interest arbitration does not conflict with the MMBA, its meet-and-confer obligation or its qualified right to strike. Therefore, such a provision is not unreasonable local rule.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.01000 – In General

Impasse exists where the parties have considered each other’s proposals and counterproposals, attempted to narrow the gap of disagreement and have, nonetheless, reached a point in their negotiations where continued discussion would be futile.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.02000 – Declaration/Determination of Impasse

If a party is privileged to claim impasse, the other party must be privileged to dispute that claim. Although this rule is particularly true where it is claimed that the declaration was made in bad faith, it is not limited to bad faith bargaining alone. An objecting party may also oppose a declaration of impasse based on a technical defense that impasse is unfounded under an objective standard.

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

Unfair practice charges filed under the MMBA are subject to a six-month statute of limitations. In cases involving violations of local rules, the statute of limitations generally begins to run when the rule is violated. Thus, the mere threat of non-compliance with a local rule is insufficient, standing alone, to trigger the running of the statute of limitations.

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

Unfair practice charges filed under the MMBA are subject to a six-month statute of limitations. In cases involving violations of local rules, the statute of limitations generally begins to run when the rule is violated. Thus, the mere threat of non-compliance with a local rule is insufficient, standing alone, to trigger the running of the statute of limitations.

1406.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; MOOTNESS
1406.01000 – In General

Rescinding an ordinance, the adoption of which was allegedly an unlawful unilateral change, does not make the issue moot because the later reversal or rescission of a unilateral action or subsequent negotiation on the subject of a unilateral action does not excuse a violation.

1406.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; MOOTNESS
1406.01000 – In General

Where the essential nature of the complaint is one party’s conduct during negotiations, the fact that the parties subsequently finalized an agreement does not render the matter moot.