Decision 2078S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
SA-CE-1747-S
Decision Date: November 24, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Local 39 alleged that the State bargained in bad faith by: (1) failing to make or respond to economic proposals; (2) using negotiators who lacked authority to negotiate economic proposals; and (3) bypassing Local 39 to deal directly with employees over terms and conditions of employment.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge. The Board held the charge failed to establish bad faith bargaining because the State was not required to negotiate economic proposals when the state budget was not final and State negotiators’ claimed lack of authority to negotiate economic proposals did not thwart the bargaining process. The Board also held there was no direct dealing by the State because the Governor’s memorandum to state employees listed proposals the Governor intended to make to the Legislature to close the budget gap and the letter explicitly stated the proposals were subject to change as the result of negotiations with state employee unions.
Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 11
Decision Headnotes
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
Charge failed to state prima facie case of bad faith bargaining under either per se or totality of conduct test because DPA’s failure to make or respond to economic proposals was justified during period when funds available for State employee compensation were uncertain due to an unprecedented State budget deficit. In light of these circumstances, DPA negotiators’ lack of authority to bargain over economic items did not delay or thwart bargaining, particularly as the parties reached agreement on several non-economic items.
603.01000 – In General
Governor’s letter to State employees listing proposals to close State budget deficit did not constitute direct dealing, even though some of the proposals concerned matters within the scope of representation, because letter did not: (1) ask State employees to bargain over or accept the proposals; (2) threaten State employees with force or reprisal or promise them a benefit; or (3) undermine the exclusive representative in the eyes of bargaining unit members as the letter stated the Governor would work with union leaders to achieve the necessary results.
603.04000 – Circumvention of Union; Direct Dealing With Employees
Governor’s letter to State employees listing proposals to close State budget deficit did not constitute direct dealing, even though some of the proposals concerned matters within the scope of representation, because letter did not: (1) ask State employees to bargain over or accept the proposals; (2) threaten State employees with force or reprisal or promise them a benefit; or (3) undermine the exclusive representative in the eyes of bargaining unit members as the letter stated the Governor would work with union leaders to achieve the necessary results.
605.01000 – Outright Refusal to Bargain
Charge failed to state prima facie case of per se violation because DPA’s failure to make or respond to economic proposals was justified during period when funds available for State employee compensation were uncertain due to an unprecedented State budget deficit.
606.18000 – Lack of Sufficient Authority
A negotiator’s lack of authority to bind the employer to an agreement indicates bad faith only when the limitation “was intended to or was used to foreclose the achievement of any agreement.” DPA negotiators’ lack of authority to bargain over economic items did not delay or thwart negotiations during period when an unprecedented budget deficit justified DPA’s failure to bargain over economic items. Nor did DPA negotiators’ announcement of their limitation midway through bargaining indicate bad faith because DPA had not previously stated its negotiators had authority to negotiate economic items.