Decision 2084H – Regents of the University of California (Los Angles)

SF-CE-842-H

Decision Date: December 14, 2009

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description: The Board affirmed the dismissal of an unfair practice charge in which the charging party alleged the University violated HEERA by failing to meet and discuss changes to health benefits for employees represented by SETC.

Disposition: The Board held that the charge was not timely filed and therefore time-barred by operation of the six-month statute of limitations set forth in HEERA section 3563.2(a).  Alternatively, with regard to the merits, the Board held that SETC failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate the University failed to meet its duty to meet and discuss changes to health benefits for employees represented by SETC.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 20

Decision Headnotes

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

HEERA section 3563.2(a) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. A charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. In cases alleging unlawful unilateral changes, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change in policy, providing that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent. Thus, a unilateral change occurs when an official action has been taken, not a subsequent date when the action becomes effective.

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

HEERA section 3563.2(a) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. A charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. In cases alleging unlawful unilateral changes, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the charging party has actual or constructive notice of the respondent’s clear intent to implement a unilateral change in policy, providing that nothing subsequent to that date evinces a wavering of that intent. Thus, a unilateral change occurs when an official action has been taken, not a subsequent date when the action becomes effective.

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

When an employer owes a duty to meet and discuss, the employer must consider the exclusive representative’s proposals but is not bound to attempt in good faith to reach a negotiated written agreement. Although the Board determines whether an employer has satisfied this obligation on a case-by-case basis, it recognizes the following three touchstones in its analysis: (1) notice before the employer’s decision is final or implemented, (2) reasonable time and opportunity for meeting and discussing, between the notice and the final decision or implementation, and (3) good faith conduct in listening to and considering proposals.

607.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DUTY TO CONSULT
607.01000 – In General

When an employer owes a duty to meet and discuss, the employer must consider the exclusive representative’s proposals but is not bound to attempt in good faith to reach a negotiated written agreement. Although the Board determines whether an employer has satisfied this obligation on a case-by-case basis, it recognizes the following three touchstones in its analysis: (1) notice before the employer’s decision is final or implemented, (2) reasonable time and opportunity for meeting and discussing, between the notice and the final decision or implementation, and (3) good faith conduct in listening to and considering proposals.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.01000 – In General

When an employer owes a duty to meet and discuss, the employer must consider the exclusive representative’s proposals but is not bound to attempt in good faith to reach a negotiated written agreement. Although the Board determines whether an employer has satisfied this obligation on a case-by-case basis, it recognizes the following three touchstones in its analysis: (1) notice before the employer’s decision is final or implemented, (2) reasonable time and opportunity for meeting and discussing, between the notice and the final decision or implementation, and (3) good faith conduct in listening to and considering proposals.