Decision 2104M – County of Mendocino

No interference with employee free choice in selection of a bargaining agent where the employer retracted a 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error on employee classifications that had moved to a new bargaining unit and were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. The employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit. The charge made no allegation of discrimination or retaliation, and made no claim that the employer’s conduct had a material effect on employee free choice. Employees who exercise choice in representative status have no right to insist upon bargaining free from economic disadvantages, and an employer’s use of economic pressures solely in support of a bargaining position cannot be held unlawful for that reason alone. An employer is entitled to withhold benefits that employees might have obtained had they remained unorganized so long as the employer engages in good faith bargaining.

No interference with employee free choice in selection of a bargaining agent where the employer retracted a 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error on employee classifications that had moved to a new bargaining unit and were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. The employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit. The charge made no allegation of discrimination or retaliation, and made no claim that the employer’s conduct had a material effect on employee free choice.

No violation where employer retracted 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error. Employee classifications that moved to a new bargaining unit were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. Employer correction of the error, resulting in the cessation of the increase to classifications no longer covered by the MOUs, does not amount to a change in policy where the classifications were not entitled to the increase, and where the employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit. No violation where charge alleged unilateral change when employer sought to recoup overpayments based on rescission of salary increases, where the employer in reasonably short order desisted from collection of overpaid compensation and no evidence demonstrated a change of generalized effect or continuing impact.

No violation where employer, without giving prior notice to the union, retracted 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error. Employee classifications that moved to a new bargaining unit were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. Employer correction of the error, resulting in the cessation of the increase to classifications no longer covered by the MOUs, does not amount to a change in policy where the classifications were not entitled to the increase, and where the employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit.

No violation where employer retracted 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error. Employee classifications that moved to a new bargaining unit were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. Employer correction of the error, resulting in the cessation of the increase to classifications no longer covered by the MOUs, does not amount to a change in policy where the classifications were not entitled to the increase, and where the employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit.

No violation where charge alleged unilateral change when employer sought to recoup overpayments based on rescission of salary increases, where the employer in reasonably short order desisted from collection of overpaid compensation and no evidence demonstrated a change of generalized effect or continuing impact.

Employees who exercise choice in representative status have no right to insist upon bargaining free from economic disadvantages, and an employer’s use of economic pressures solely in support of a bargaining position cannot be held unlawful for that reason alone. An employer is entitled to withhold benefits that employees might have obtained had they remained unorganized so long as the employer engages in good faith bargaining.

Employees who exercise choice in representative status have no right to insist upon bargaining free from economic disadvantages, and an employer’s use of economic pressures solely in support of a bargaining position cannot be held unlawful for that reason alone. An employer is entitled to withhold benefits that employees might have obtained had they remained unorganized so long as the employer engages in good faith bargaining.

No violation where employer retracted 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error. Employee classifications that moved to a new bargaining unit were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. Employer correction of the error, resulting in the cessation of the increase to classifications no longer covered by the MOUs, does not amount to a change in policy where the classifications were not entitled to the increase, and where the employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit.

No interference with employee free choice in selection of a bargaining agent where the employer retracted a 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error on employee classifications that had moved to a new bargaining unit and were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. The employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit. The charge made no allegation of discrimination or retaliation, and made no claim that the employer’s conduct had a material effect on employee free choice.

No interference with employee free choice in selection of a bargaining agent where the employer retracted a 1% COLA that was implemented by clerical error on employee classifications that had moved to a new bargaining unit and were no longer covered by the MOUs of the units they migrated from, and were not entitled to the 1% increase provided for therein. The employer continued to bargain in good faith over a new MOU covering the new bargaining unit. The charge made no allegation of discrimination or retaliation, and made no claim that the employer’s conduct had a material effect on employee free choice. Employees who exercise choice in representative status have no right to insist upon bargaining free from economic disadvantages, and an employer’s use of economic pressures solely in support of a bargaining position cannot be held unlawful for that reason alone. An employer is entitled to withhold benefits that employees might have obtained had they remained unorganized so long as the employer engages in good faith bargaining.