Decision 2160E – Sonoma County Office of Education
SF-CE-2813-E
Decision Date: February 1, 2011
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged that SCOE made an unlawful unilateral change by deducting the amount of health benefits premium increase from employee paychecks.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the Board agent’s dismissal of the charge. The expired collective bargaining agreement required SCOE to make a particular contribution toward health benefits premiums; it did not require SCOE to maintain a certain level of health benefits. Thus, SCOE did not alter the status quo by failing to pay the premium increase.
Perc Vol: 35
Perc Index: 33
Decision Headnotes
602.01000 – In General
Charge failed to state a prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change when the employer deducted the amount of a health benefits premium increase from employees’ paychecks during negotiations following expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. The expired agreement set the employer’s contribution rate; it did not require the employer to maintain a certain level of health benefits. Thus, the employer did not alter the status quo by failing to pay the premium increase.
602.06000 – Change in Past Practice
Charge failed to establish a past practice that the employer paid 100% of employees’ health benefit premiums. The collective bargaining agreement set the employer’s premium contribution rate at 100% of a particular health plan’s rate; it did not require the employer to maintain a certain level of health benefits. Nor did the employer pay 100% of premiums for every possible plan offered to employees. Accordingly, the employer did not make an unlawful unilateral change when it deducted the amount of a health benefits premium increase from employees’ paychecks during negotiations following expiration of the agreement.
608.05000 – Past Practice; Maintenance of Status Quo
Charge failed to state a prima facie case of unlawful unilateral change when the employer deducted the amount of a health benefits premium increase from employees’ paychecks during negotiations following expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. The expired agreement set the employer’s contribution rate; it did not require the employer to maintain a certain level of health benefits. Thus, the employer did not alter the status quo by failing to pay the premium increase.
1404.03000 – General Principles of Contract Interpretation
Traditional rules of contract law guide PERB’s interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement. PERB need not go beyond the plain language of the contract when the charging party has not alleged facts, such as bargaining history or the parties’ past practice, showing that contract language is susceptible to another interpretation,. The plain language of the collective bargaining agreement set the employer’s health benefits premium contribution rate at 100% of a particular health plan’s rate; it did not require the employer to maintain a certain level of health benefits. The charge failed to allege any facts showing that the parties gave the language anything other than its ordinary meaning. Accordingly, the employer did not make an unlawful unilateral change when it deducted the amount of a health benefits premium increase from employees’ paychecks during negotiations following expiration of the agreement.