Decision 2074M – City of Clovis

SA-CE-513-M

Decision Date: October 30, 2009

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 179

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)
601.05000 – Other

MMBA section 3505.4 provides that once an impasse has been properly reached, a public agency “may implement its last, best and final offer.” The provision is permissive, not mandatory. The agency is not obligated to implement the last, best, and final offer. No binding agreement existed, as the Union failed to present sufficient evidence that it had tendered a post-impasse acceptance of the City’s last, best, and final offer. Furthermore, even if the Union had shown valid acceptance of the last, best, and final offer, MMBA section 3505.1 requires the agreement be reduced to writing and ratified by the governing agency before it will become binding on the parties. Here, the record was void of any evidence that an agreement was reduced to writing and ratified by the City.

605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.05000 – Other

MMBA section 3505.4 provides that once an impasse has been properly reached, a public agency “may implement its last, best and final offer.” The provision is permissive, not mandatory. The agency is not obligated to implement the last, best, and final offer. No binding agreement existed, as the Union failed to present sufficient evidence that it had tendered a post-impasse acceptance of the City’s last, best, and final offer. Furthermore, even if the Union had shown valid acceptance of the last, best, and final offer, MMBA section 3505.1 requires the agreement be reduced to writing and ratified by the governing agency before it will become binding on the parties. Here, the record was void of any evidence that an agreement was reduced to writing and ratified by the City.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.08000 – Exhaustion of Impasse Procedures or Time Between Impasse and Mediation

MMBA section 3505.4 provides that once an impasse has been properly reached, a public agency “may implement its last, best and final offer.” The provision is permissive, not mandatory. The agency is not obligated to implement the last, best, and final offer. No binding agreement existed, as the Union failed to present sufficient evidence that it had tendered a post-impasse acceptance of the City’s last, best, and final offer. Furthermore, even if the Union had shown valid acceptance of the last, best, and final offer, MMBA section 3505.1 requires the agreement be reduced to writing and ratified by the governing agency before it will become binding on the parties. Here, the record was void of any evidence that an agreement was reduced to writing and ratified by the City.

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

MMBA section 3505.4 provides that once an impasse has been properly reached, a public agency “may implement its last, best and final offer.” The provision is permissive, not mandatory. The agency is not obligated to implement the last, best, and final offer. No binding agreement existed, as the Union failed to present sufficient evidence that it had tendered a post-impasse acceptance of the City’s last, best, and final offer. Furthermore, even if the Union had shown valid acceptance of the last, best, and final offer, MMBA section 3505.1 requires the agreement be reduced to writing and ratified by the governing agency before it will become binding on the parties. Here, the record was void of any evidence that an agreement was reduced to writing and ratified by the City.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

The issue of whether or not the Union’s telephone call to the City constituted a “changed circumstance” that revived the City’s obligation to bargain cannot be considered as it was not alleged in the charge, was not alleged in the complaint, was not introduced at hearing, and was not raised by the Union until its post- hearing brief. The City was not provided notice, or adequate opportunity to fully litigate the issue, and did not have the opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses on the issue.