Decision 2139M – City of Alhambra * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2663-M and County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M

LA-CE-263-M

Decision Date: October 26, 2010

Decision Type: PERB Decision

 * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Orange (2019) PERB Decision No. 2663-M & County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M * * *

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 160

Decision Headnotes

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

Three-part test established in Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623 applies to determine whether a matter is within the scope of representation under the MMBA: (1) Does the management action have a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees. If not, there is no duty to meet and confer. (2) Does the significant and adverse effect arise from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision. If not, then the meet and confer requirement applies. (3) If both factors are present, the Board applies a balancing test. The action is within the scope of representation only if the employer’s need for unencumbered decisionmaking in managing its operations is outweighed by the benefit to employer-employee relations of bargaining about the action in question.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.06000 – Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative

The determination of minimum qualifications for the position of fire captain has an effect on public services and is a fundamental managerial or policy decision.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated

Three-part test established in Claremont Police Officers Assn. v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623 applies to determine whether a matter is within the scope of representation under the MMBA: (1) Does the management action have a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees. If not, there is no duty to meet and confer. (2) Does the significant and adverse effect arise from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision. If not, then the meet and confer requirement applies. (3) If both factors are present, the Board applies a balancing test. The action is within the scope of representation only if the employer’s need for unencumbered decisionmaking in managing its operations is outweighed by the benefit to employer-employee relations of bargaining about the action in question. Modification of class specification to expand the pool of eligible candidates for fire captain position to include current employees who are already performing the duties covered by the designated certifications had no significant or adverse impact on the working conditions of bargaining unit employees, where modification imposed no new eligibility requirements, did not grant any preference to current fire engineers, and did not affect the opportunity of candidates with certificates to compete for and obtain fire captain positions. The determination of minimum qualifications in this case had an effect on public services and was a fundamental managerial or policy decision. Furthermore, there is no evidence that bargaining over the expansion of the candidate pool for fire captains would outweigh the City’s need to determine the qualifications necessary to provide public fire protection services to its citizens.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02019 – Classification of Employees

Modification of class specification to expand the pool of eligible candidates for fire captain position to include current employees who are already performing the duties covered by the designated certifications had no significant or adverse impact on the working conditions of bargaining unit employees, where modification imposed no new eligibility requirements, did not grant any preference to current fire engineers, and did not affect the opportunity of candidates with certificates to compete for and obtain fire captain positions. The determination of minimum qualifications in this case had an effect on public services and was a fundamental managerial or policy decision. Furthermore, there is no evidence that bargaining over the expansion of the candidate pool for fire captains would outweigh the City’s need to determine the qualifications necessary to provide public fire protection services to its citizens.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02074 – Job Specifications

Modification of class specification to expand the pool of eligible candidates for fire captain position to include current employees who are already performing the duties covered by the designated certifications had no significant or adverse impact on the working conditions of bargaining unit employees, where modification imposed no new eligibility requirements, did not grant any preference to current fire engineers, and did not affect the opportunity of candidates with certificates to compete for and obtain fire captain positions. The determination of minimum qualifications in this case had an effect on public services and was a fundamental managerial or policy decision. Furthermore, there is no evidence that bargaining over the expansion of the candidate pool for fire captains would outweigh the City’s need to determine the qualifications necessary to provide public fire protection services to its citizens.

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.07000 – Administrative and Judicial Notice

ALJ acted within the scope of his authority under PERB Regulation 32170(a) in granting request for judicial notice of documents provided one month before the record was closed upon submission of final briefs. The requested documents were either presented to the city council or part of the city council’s agenda, were not reasonably subject to dispute, and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy, and opposing party had the opportunity to review and address the documents in its closing brief.