Decision 2125M – County of Fresno

Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. County’s erroneous publication of personnel rules including a copy of the policy suggesting that BU 31 was exempt from the policy was not sufficient to show that the Board of Supervisors had in fact amended the policy to exempt BU 31. The implementation of furloughs represented the application of the existing policy. Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate that implementation of furloughs was a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. Past practice will only be considered when necessary to determine an ambiguous policy. Past practice does not trump a clear established policy. Failure to enforce a policy does not mean an employer is forever precluded from doing so. Union argument that the parties bargaining history and past practice show that the MOU between the parties is plagued by mistake of fact is misplaced where the issue before PERB is not bad faith bargaining, but is the allegation of unilateral change of a County policy that is not set forth in the MOU.

No duty to bargain the implementation of furloughs when it represents the application of existing policy. Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. Erroneous publication of the policy by the County Personnel Department suggesting that certain bargaining units were exempt from the policy was not sufficient to show that the Board of Supervisors had in fact amended the policy to exclude those bargaining units.

Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. County’s erroneous publication of personnel rules including a copy of the policy suggesting that BU 31 was exempt from the policy was not sufficient to show that the Board of Supervisors had in fact amended the policy to exempt BU 31. The implementation of furloughs represented the application of the existing policy. Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate that implementation of furloughs was a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. Past practice will only be considered when necessary to determine an ambiguous policy. Past practice does not trump a clear established policy. Failure to enforce a policy does not mean an employer is forever precluded from doing so. Union argument that the parties bargaining history and past practice show that the MOU between the parties is plagued by mistake of fact is misplaced where the issue before PERB is not bad faith bargaining, but is the allegation of unilateral change of a County policy that is not set forth in the MOU.

No duty to bargain the implementation of furloughs when it represents the application of existing policy. Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. Erroneous publication of the policy by the County Personnel Department suggesting that certain bargaining units were exempt from the policy was not sufficient to show that the Board of Supervisors had in fact amended the policy to exclude those bargaining units.

Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate that implementation of furloughs was a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. Past practice will only be considered when necessary to determine an ambiguous policy. Past practice does not trump a clear established policy. Failure to enforce a policy does not mean an employer is forever precluded from doing so. Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate that implementation of furloughs was a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. Past practice will only be considered when necessary to determine an ambiguous policy. Past practice does not trump a clear established policy. Failure to enforce a policy does not mean an employer is forever precluded from doing so. Union argument that the parties bargaining history and past practice show that the MOU between the parties is plagued by mistake of fact is misplaced where the issue before PERB is not bad faith bargaining, but is the allegation of unilateral change of a County policy that is not set forth in the MOU.

Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. County’s erroneous publication of personnel rules including a copy of the policy suggesting that BU 31 was exempt from the policy was not sufficient to show that the Board of Supervisors had in fact amended the policy to exempt BU 31. The implementation of furloughs represented the application of the existing policy. Unfair practice charge failed to demonstrate that implementation of furloughs was a unilateral change in policy where the County Board of Supervisors policy regarding mandatory furloughs was clearly established. Past practice will only be considered when necessary to determine an ambiguous policy. Past practice does not trump a clear established policy. Failure to enforce a policy does not mean an employer is forever precluded from doing so. Union argument that the parties bargaining history and past practice show that the MOU between the parties is plagued by mistake of fact is misplaced where the issue before PERB is not bad faith bargaining, but is the allegation of unilateral change of a County policy that is not set forth in the MOU.