Decision 2105H – Regents of the University of California (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299 )
SF-CO-164-H
Decision Date: April 21, 2010
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charging party alleged that AFSCME unilaterally changed the access policy by leafleting in prohibited areas at the university medical centers on the Los Angeles and San Francisco campuses.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the Board agent’s dismissal finding that where university alleged the union violated the campus access policy by leafleting in prohibited areas, but no facts are alleged to demonstrate more than an isolated breach of the CBA, the charge failed to establish a prima facie case for a unilateral change violation.
Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 73
Decision Headnotes
102.03000 – Enforcement of Settlement Agreements and Contracts 3541.5(b); 3514.5(b); 3563.2(b)
PERB is prohibited from enforcement of agreements between the parties and may only issue a complaint where the breach of the agreement also constitutes an unfair practice violation. In order to constitute an unfair practice violation, the conduct must amount to a change in policy. Where University alleged the union violated the campus access policy by leafleting in prohibited areas, but no facts are alleged to demonstrate more than an isolated breach of the CBA, the charge failed to establish a prima facie case for a unilateral change violation.
602.01000 – In General
PERB is prohibited from enforcement of agreements between the parties and may only issue a complaint where the breach of the agreement also constitutes an unfair practice violation. In order to constitute an unfair practice violation, the conduct must amount to a change in policy. Where University alleged the union violated the campus access policy by leafleting in prohibited areas, but no facts are alleged to demonstrate more than an isolated breach of the CBA, the charge failed to establish a prima facie case for a unilateral change violation.
602.03000 – Change In Policy
PERB is prohibited from enforcement of agreements between the parties and may only issue a complaint where the breach of the agreement also constitutes an unfair practice violation. In order to constitute an unfair practice violation, the conduct must amount to a change in policy. Where University alleged the union violated the campus access policy by leafleting in prohibited areas, but no facts are alleged to demonstrate more than an isolated breach of the CBA, the charge failed to establish a prima facie case for a unilateral change violation.
804.01000 – In General
The same standard for evaluation of a unilateral change violation by an employer applies to evaluation of a unilateral change violation by a union.
804.02000 – Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000)
The same standard for evaluation of a unilateral change violation by an employer applies to evaluation of a unilateral change violation by a union.
900.01000 – In General
A unilateral change in a negotiable subject prior to the completion of impasse procedures is a “per se” violation.