Decision 2243E – Santa Monica Community College District

LA-CE-5581-E

Decision Date: February 29, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 132

Decision Headnotes

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.02000 – Inflexible Position

PERB has made clear that while a party may not merely go through the motions, it may lawfully maintain an adamant position on any issue; adamant insistence on a bargaining position is not necessarily refusal to bargain in good faith; the obligation of the employer to bargain in good faith does not require the yielding of position fairly maintained; a charge that alleges that the college district refused to entertain proposed modifications to a provision of the parties’ agreement but fails to allege any facts suggesting that the college district’s position was not fairly maintained is insufficient to state a prima facie case of bad faith bargaining.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.11000 – Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals

A charge that alleged that the college district came to bargaining sessions without any proposals or counter-proposals failed to state a prima facie case; where charge failed to allege facts regarding what proposals the college district failed to make or respond to, and how the college district’s failure to make proposals or counter-proposals demonstrated a “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude, the charging party failed to satisfy its burden; PERB has held that an employer is not obligated to make a counter-proposal to a union’s proposal that is predictably unacceptable; where the charge failed to allege facts regarding what proposals were made by the union, therefore making it impossible to determine whether the college district had any obligation to respond to them, the charging party failed to satisfy its burden.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.04000 – Continuing Violation

PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint in respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; the limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge; a charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed; where the charge alleged that the parties were required under the ground rules to sign off on tentative agreements as they were reached at the bargaining table, the union knew or should have known of the existence of a violation at the time each agreement was reached; because the charge alleged that the dates upon which the tentative agreements were reached were outside the statutory limitations period, the allegation that the college district violated the ground rules when it did not sign off on the tentative agreements when they were reached was time-barred; once the limitations period begins to run, it does not begin anew by making the same request and therefore the union’s subsequent request to sign off on the tentative agreements did not restart the limitations period; to establish a continuing violation, a charging party must show that there is some new violation, sufficiently independent of the original act, occurring within the limitations period; a continuing violation is not found where an employer’s conduct during the limitations period is simply maintaining the original position or action it took outside the limitations period; an alleged violation of ground rules requiring parties to sign off on tentative agreements when they are reached at the bargaining table is not in the nature of a continuing violation.

1109.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; ISSUES ON APPEAL
1109.02000 – Statute of Limitations

PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint in respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; the limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge; a charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed; where the charge alleged that the parties were required under the ground rules to sign off on tentative agreements as they were reached at the bargaining table, the union knew or should have known of the existence of a violation at the time each agreement was reached; because the charge alleged that the dates upon which the tentative agreements were reached were outside the statutory limitations period, the allegation that the college district violated the ground rules when it did not sign off on the tentative agreements when they were reached was time-barred; once the limitations period begins to run, it does not begin anew by making the same request and therefore the union’s subsequent request to sign off on the tentative agreements did not restart the limitations period; to establish a continuing violation, a charging party must show that there is some new violation, sufficiently independent of the original act, occurring within the limitations period; a continuing violation is not found where an employer’s conduct during the limitations period is simply maintaining the original position or action it took outside the limitations period; an alleged violation of ground rules requiring parties to sign off on tentative agreements when they are reached at the bargaining table is not in the nature of a continuing violation.