Decision 2115S – State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of Personnel Administration)

SA-CE-1676-S

Decision Date: June 10, 2010

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 99

Decision Headnotes

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

Charge failed to state facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of refusal to bargain over the area of layoff related to the closure of two juvenile facilities. By giving notice more than four months before the planned implementation date, the State afforded the union ample opportunity to negotiate over the effects of the layoff, including the area of layoff.

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining

Charge failed to state facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of refusal to bargain over the area of layoff related to the closure of two juvenile facilities. By giving notice more than four months before the planned implementation date, the State afforded the union ample opportunity to negotiate over the effects of the layoff, including the area of layoff. Implementation of the nonnegotiable decision to lay off employees prior to the completion of negotiations over the effects of the layoff is permissible where the decision to implement was not arbitrary, the employer gave sufficient notice of the implementation date to provide for meaningful negotiation, and the employer continues to negotiate in good faith.

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

Charge fails to allege sufficient facts to establish that the State violated its duty to bargain by implementing layoff, while it continued to bargain for three more weeks after implementation. Implementation of the nonnegotiable decision to lay off employees prior to the completion of negotiations over the effects of the layoff is permissible where the decision to implement was not arbitrary, the employer gave sufficient notice of the implementation date to provide for meaningful negotiation, and the employer continues to negotiate in good faith.

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

By giving notice more than four months before the planned implementation date, the State afforded the union ample opportunity to negotiate over the effects of the layoff, including the area of layoff.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.04000 – Time of Implementation

Charge did not establish that implementation of layoff occurred when employer notified union and employees of its layoff decision, which was not negotiable, and offered to negotiate the effects of the layoff. Until such time as the layoff was actually implemented, and even thereafter, the parties could have negotiated changes to the area of layoff. Implementation of the nonnegotiable decision to lay off employees prior to the completion of negotiations over the effects of the layoff is permissible where the decision to implement was not arbitrary, the employer gave sufficient notice of the implementation date to provide for meaningful negotiation, and the employer continues to negotiate in good faith.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General

Allegations that: (1) the State unilaterally set the area of layoff; (2) it disseminated that area to employees and the union; (3) employees relied upon this area in making life and career decisions; (4) the first bargaining session occurred days before the election interviews; (5) the State could not change the area of layoff in such a short time frame; (6) the State offered no counter proposal regarding the layoff area; and (7) the area of layoff remained unchanged through bargaining, did not establish “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude on the part of the State so as to establish a prima facie case of surface bargaining. The State provided ample notice and an opportunity to bargain over the effects of its decision to implement the layoff and participated in seven negotiating sessions during which both sides presented proposals. The evidence indicates that neither party was willing to yield its position. The State’s adamant insistence on its bargaining position does not establish a failure to bargain in good faith.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.02000 – Inflexible Position

Allegations that: (1) the State unilaterally set the area of layoff; (2) it disseminated that area to employees and the union; (3) employees relied upon this area in making life and career decisions; (4) the first bargaining session occurred days before the election interviews; (5) the State could not change the area of layoff in such a short time frame; (6) the State offered no counter proposal regarding the layoff area; and (7) the area of layoff remained unchanged through bargaining, did not establish “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude on the part of the State so as to establish a prima facie case of surface bargaining. The State provided ample notice and an opportunity to bargain over the effects of its decision to implement the layoff and participated in seven negotiating sessions during which both sides presented proposals. The evidence indicates that neither party was willing to yield its position. The State’s adamant insistence on its bargaining position does not establish a failure to bargain in good faith.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02076 – Lay-Offs

Charge failed to state facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of refusal to bargain over the area of layoff related to the closure of two juvenile facilities. By giving notice more than four months before the planned implementation date, the State afforded the union ample opportunity to negotiate over the effects of the layoff, including the area of layoff. Implementation of the nonnegotiable decision to lay off employees prior to the completion of negotiations over the effects of the layoff is permissible where the decision to implement was not arbitrary, the employer gave sufficient notice of the implementation date to provide for meaningful negotiation, and the employer continues to negotiate in good faith.