Decision 2262E – Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District

SF-CE-2806-E

Decision Date: May 8, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 176

Decision Headnotes

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.02000 – Prior Notice and Opportunity to Bargain

General publication of a governing board agenda does not constitute effective notice to exclusive representative of proposed changes.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.04000 – Time of Implementation

Notice of an agenda indicating a drug testing policy would be effective retroactively rendered negotiations futile.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.06000 – Change in Past Practice

A “zero tolerance” drug testing policy not mandated by federal law that required dismissal of bus drivers if they refused to submit to an alcohol or drug test constituted a change in past policy and practice which required progressive discipline. The “safety” exception to progressive discipline was not applicable to the employee’s refusal to disrobe during a drug test, as it did not threaten or expose to danger students, employees or District property.

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.07000 – Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession

Waiver by contract will be effective only if the matter was “fully discussed” and the Union “consciously yielded” to it. The “safety” exception to the progressive discipline article did not waive the union’s right to negotiate over a “zero tolerance” policy that required dismissal of employees who refused drug tests. Union did not waive its right to negotiate over a “zero tolerance “ policy where it was adopted retroactively, rendering negotiations futile. Employer failed to show that it gave the Union notice of adoption of the policy. Without notice, the Union could neither acquiesce in the policy nor unreasonably fail to demand negotiations over it.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02029 – Disciplinary Action

Employee discipline, including criteria and procedures, are within the scope of representation. Where external law mandates certain procedures within the scope of representation, those procedures are negotiable only to the extent of the employer’s discretion. Federal drug testing regime does not mandate establishment of a “zero tolerance” policy. Such policy is therefore negotiable.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period

Union had actual notice of a change in disciplinary policy when employee was dismissed for failing to disrobe during a drug test. Policy was adopted several years prior, but Union was not notified of the adoption at that time.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.07000 – Waiver; Estoppel

Employer asserting a defense of waiver by inaction has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of evidence that it gave union notice and opportunity to bargain over the proposed change and the union failed to act. Where policy was adopted retroactively, request to bargain would have been futile, defense of waiver fails.

1200.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS
1200.01000 – In General

Employer that unilaterally adopted a change in disciplinary policy by implementing a “zero tolerance” policy not authorized by the progressive discipline article in the parties contract is ordered to cease and desist from enforcing such policy after a finding that employer failed to bargain with the Union over the adoption of the “zero tolerance” policy.

1201.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS
1201.02000 – Reinstatement

Reinstatement of employee dismissed in violation of contract provision requiring progressive discipline is appropriate where the “zero tolerance” policy, purporting to be an exception to the progressive discipline policy, was adopted unilaterally without giving the union an opportunity to negotiate over the policy.

1201.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; REINSTATEMENT; BACKPAY BENEFITS
1201.03000 – Back Pay; Interest

Where employee is ordered reinstated after dismissal in violation of contract provision requiring progressive discipline, where the “zero tolerance” policy, purporting to be an exception to the progressive discipline policy, was adapted unilaterally without giving the union an opportunity to negotiate over the policy, back pay and benefits at 7% per annum were appropriate to restore status quo ante.