Decision 2041M – City and County of San Francisco
SF-CO-129-M
Decision Date: June 29, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board affirmed a proposed decision by an ALJ finding the exclusive representative violated the MMBA when it refused to name a representative to an interest arbitration panel and when it refused to participate in the impasse resolution procedures set forth in the City’s Charter.
Disposition: The Board held the charges were timely filed and not moot. With regard to the merits, the Board held that the exclusive representative violated the MMBA when it refused to name a representative to an interest arbitration panel and when it refused to participate in the impasse resolution procedures set forth in the City’s Charter.
Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 120
Decision Headnotes
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.
750.01000 – 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.
900.01000 – 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.
900.02000 – 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.
1101.01000 – 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.
1101.03000 – 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 – 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 – 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.