Decision 2100M – County of Sonoma

SF-CE-523-M

Decision Date: February 25, 2010

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description: The complaint alleged that the County violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act  (MMBA) by:  (1) unilaterally implementing its last, best and final offer prior to the completion of impasse procedures; (2) unilaterally implementing terms and conditions of employment not reasonably contemplated within the parties’ pre-impasse negotiations; and (3) unilaterally imposing a waiver of charging party’s right to negotiate health benefit changes for the upcoming year.

Disposition: The Board found that the County did not violate MMBA by refusing to submit to statutory interest arbitration, in light of a final appellate court decision holding the governing statute unconstitutional.  The Board further found that the County did not violate the MMBA by unilaterally implementing terms and conditions of employment that were reasonably contemplated within its pre-impasse proposal.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 54

Decision Headnotes

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

Charging party failed to establish that the terms and conditions of employment implemented post-impasse deviated in any significant way from the proposals presented or discussed during negotiations. Although employer changed some of the contract language in its final implementation, all of the changes were reasonably comprehended within the employer’s pre-impasse proposals. Accordingly, charging party failed to establish a violation of the MMBA.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.02000 – Prior Notice and Opportunity to Bargain

Charging party failed to establish that the terms and conditions of employment implemented post-impasse deviated in any significant way from the proposals presented or discussed during negotiations. Although employer changed some of the contract language in its final implementation, all of the changes were reasonably comprehended within the employer’s pre-impasse proposals. Accordingly, charging party failed to establish a violation of the MMBA.

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

County was not required to submit to the binding interest arbitration provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1299 et seq. prior to implementing its last, best and final offer, in light of holding by court of appeal in County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 322, 344, 346-347, review denied, that the governing statute is unconstitutional.

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

County was not required to submit to the binding interest arbitration provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1299 et seq. prior to implementing its last, best and final offer, in light of holding by court of appeal in County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 322, 344, 346-347, review denied, that the governing statute is unconstitutional.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.05000 – Post-Impasse

County was not required to submit to the binding interest arbitration provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1299 et seq. prior to implementing its last, best and final offer, in light of holding by court of appeal in County of Sonoma v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 322, 344, 346-347, review denied, that the governing statute is unconstitutional.