Decision 2085S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
SA-CE-1777-S
Decision Date: December 22, 2009
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Local 39 alleged that the State violated the Dills Act by: (1) implementing a change in the method of calculating overtime compensation; and (2) failing to offer Local 39 an exemption from the implementation as negotiated with another union.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge. The Board held that the State did not make an unlawful unilateral change by enacting and implementing legislation that changed the method of calculating overtime compensation for state employees. The Board also held DPA’s failure to offer an exemption to the new method did not violate the Dills Act because DPA is not required to offer a benefit to every bargaining unit and Local 39 never requested to negotiate over an exemption.
Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 24
Decision Headnotes
101.01000 – In General
PERB lacked jurisdiction over allegation that statutory change to method of overtime calculation for State employees impaired contract between employee organization and the State in violation of the California Constitution.
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
Charge failed to state prima facie case of bad faith bargaining because an employer is not required to offer a benefit negotiated with one of its bargaining units to any or all of its other bargaining units. Additionally, employee organization made no request to bargain over particular benefit negotiated with another bargaining unit.
602.01000 – In General
Charge failed to state prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change because the State had no obligation to bargain over legislative proposal to change method of overtime calculation for State employees or implementation of enacted legislation by DPA. The Legislature may enact a change to terms and conditions of State employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would constitute an unfair practice. Dills Act section 3517.8(a) does not preclude the Legislature from enacting a change to terms and conditions of State employment during the period between expiration of an MOU and the parties’ reaching a successor agreement or impasse. The Governor is not required to bargain with State employee unions before taking action pursuant to his constitutional role as a participant in the legislative process. DPA does not commit an unlawful unilateral change by implementing changes to terms and conditions of State employment in compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process.