Decision 2130S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
Decision Date: September 20, 2010
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The complaint alleged that DPA bargained in bad faith by: (1) implementing its last, best, and final offer (LBFO) for a three-year term; and (2) failing to implement a union release time provision contained in the LBFO.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal of the complaint. The Board held that DPA did not implement the term of agreement provision in the LBFO. The Board also held that CCPOA waived its right to file the union release time allegation by executing a written release time agreement with DPA that included an explicit waiver of future claims on the subject.
Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 137
900.05000 – Post-Impasse
Upon impasse, an employer may implement a term of agreement provision contained in its last, best and final offer (LBFO) unless implementation would waive or limit the union’s right to bargain should impasse be broken. No Dills Act violation when State employer did not implement the three-year term of agreement provision in its LBFO and, even if it had, the provision would not have waived or limited the union’s right to bargain upon breaking of impasse. Dills Act section 3517.8(b) allows the State employer to implement “any or all” of its LBFO upon impasse. The requirement that implemented terms be “reasonably comprehended” within the LBFO applies only to terms that are actually implemented; to apply the requirement to terms not implemented would be contrary to the plain language of section 3517.8(b). Thus, the State did not violate the Dills Act by failing to implement a paid union leave provision contained in its LBFO.
1402.01000 – In General
Union waived its right to pursue future claims against the State employer for State’s failure to implement union leave provisions of its last, best, and final offer. Union entered into a written union leave agreement that contained a clause which explicitly waived the union’s right to pursue future claims on the subject. Because the plain language of the agreement constituted a clear and unmistakable waiver of all future claims, the Board did not consider the bargaining history of the agreement presented by the union.