Decision 2234S – State of California (Department of Developmental Services)
Decision Date: January 31, 2012
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged that the State of CA (DDS) unilaterally transferred work outside the bargaining unit and failed to bargain over the installation of surveillance cameras in a work area. SEIU appealed the Board agent’s partial dismissal of the charges.
Disposition: The Board upheld the partial dismissal of an unfair practice charge because the charge failed to establish a prima facie case that DDS unlawfully transferred work out of the bargaining unit. The charge failed to allege that the work in question had been done previously and exclusively by unit members. The Board also upheld the dismissal of the charge concerning surveillance cameras because it was untimely.
Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 114
1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated
To prevail on a transfer of work theory, the charging party must establish as a threshold matter that its bargaining unit had previously and exclusively performed the duties at issue. Where unit and non-unit employees traditionally have performed overlapping duties, the employer does not violate its duty to negotiate in good faith merely by increasing the quantity of work that non-unit employees perform and decreasing the quantity of work that unit employees perform.
1101.01000 – In General
Dills Act section 3514.5(a)(1) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge. In this case, the employer allegedly refused to bargain over effects of a unilateral change, then allegedly refused to bargain twice more thereafter. The second and third requests to bargain reiterated the first request. The statute of limitations began to run when the charging party learned of the employer’s first refusal to bargain and thus, the employer’s initial refusal to bargain fell outside of the statutory period. In the absence of changed circumstances, subsequent failures to bargain about a prior change do not constitute new violations so as to bring the dispute within the statute of limitations.