Decision 2048E – San Francisco Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313-E

SF-CE-2690-E

Decision Date: June 30, 2009

Decision Type: PERB Decision

 * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313-E * * *

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 123

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

No prima facie case of bad faith bargaining because charge failed to establish employer was obligated to bargain over change in employees’ reporting location. Employees’ reporting location is not within the scope of representation under EERA and the charge did not establish that the employer’s decision to change employees’ reporting location had any actual effect on subjects within the scope of representation.

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining

Employees’ reporting location is not within the scope of representation under EERA. Charge failed to establish that the employer’s decision to change employees’ reporting location had any actual effect on subjects within the scope of representation. Thus, the employer had no duty to bargain with the union over the decision or its effects prior to implementing the change in reporting location.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.01000 – In General

No prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change because the change did not concern a matter within the scope of representation. Employees’ reporting location is not within the scope of representation under EERA and the charge did not establish that the employer’s decision to change employees’ reporting location had any actual effect on subjects within the scope of representation.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated

Employees’ reporting location is not within the scope of representation under EERA.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02080 – Length of Work Day

Allegation that change in reporting location increased employees’ commute time did not establish an effect on the length of employees’ workday because unpaid commute time is not considered part of the workday.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02125 – Salaries or Wages

Employer-provided or subsidized parking is an emolument of value gained in the course of employment and therefore constitutes wages. Allegation that change in reporting location would require employee to pay for parking did not establish a change in wages because no allegation that employer had previously provided employee parking or that employee had actually paid to park as a result of the change.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02164 – Other

Employees’ reporting location is not within the scope of representation under EERA.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

PERB Regulation 32136 authorizes the Board to excuse a late filing upon a showing of good cause. Good cause found to excuse late filing of response to appeal when delay caused by clerical error and no prejudice to other party.