Decision 2288M – City of Pinole

SF-CE-864-M

Decision Date: October 15, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

604.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
604.01000 – In General

Charge failed to allege facts showing that the employer either ignored or responded with deliberately misleading information to any specific request for information.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General

Fact that employer presented proposals based upon a document prepared by a joint working group of local government managers does not indicate that the employer lacked a general desire to reach agreement or intent to subvert the negotiating process.

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

Fact that employer presented proposals based upon a document prepared by a joint working group of local government managers does not indicate that the employer lacked a general desire to reach agreement or intent to subvert the negotiating process.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.15000 – Other

Fact that employer presented proposals based upon a document prepared by a joint working group of local government managers does not indicate that the employer lacked a general desire to reach agreement or intent to subvert the negotiating process.

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

While charge alleged change in past practice of allowing employees to attend city council meetings while on duty, charge failed to allege facts establishing alleged change in policy concerned a matter within the scope of representation.

605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.02000 – Insistence on Nonmandatory/Illegal Subjects (See also Scope of Representation, Sec 1000)

It is well established that an employer may not insist to impasse upon a waiver of statutory rights. Allegations that pension proposal amounted to a waiver of statutorily-prescribed maximum employee pension contributions are sufficient to support a viable theory of law so as to warrant issuance of a complaint.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.01000 – In General

Employer lawfully implemented its last, best and final offer retroactively. The fact that the parties continued to negotiate over proposals does not preclude employer, upon having bargained to impasse in good faith, from implementing the terms of its last, best and final offer retroactively as presented during negotiations.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02055 – Fringe Benefit Contributions

It is well established that an employer may not insist to impasse upon a waiver of statutory rights. Allegations that pension proposal amounted to a waiver of statutorily-prescribed maximum employee pension contributions are sufficient to support a viable theory of law so as to warrant issuance of a complaint.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02071 – Job Duties

Charge failed to allege facts establishing change in policy of allowing employees to attend city council meetings while on duty, concerned a matter within the scope of representation. No facts alleged that on-duty attendance at such meetings related in any way to the job duties or working conditions of firefighters.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02100 – Past Practices

Charge failed to allege facts establishing change in policy of allowing employees to attend city council meetings while on duty, concerned a matter within the scope of representation. No facts alleged that on-duty attendance at such meetings related in any way to the job duties or working conditions of firefighters.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02121 – Retirement

It is well established that an employer may not insist to impasse upon a waiver of statutory rights. Allegations that pension proposal amounted to a waiver of statutorily-prescribed maximum employee pension contributions are sufficient to support a viable theory of law so as to warrant issuance of a complaint.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02164 – Other

Charge failed to allege facts establishing change in policy of allowing employees to attend city council meetings while on duty, concerned a matter within the scope of representation. No facts alleged that on-duty attendance at such meetings related in any way to the job duties or working conditions of firefighters.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

In processing an unfair practice charge, the role of a Board agent is to investigate the charge to determine if an unfair practice has been committed, but the Board’s regulations do not “empower agents to rule on the ultimate merits of a charge.” (Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466 (Eastside); PERB Regs. 32620 and 32640.) Pursuant to Eastside, a complaint may be issued to test viable competing theories of law. Although the Board’s role ordinarily is to resolve disputed questions of law, under the unique setting of this case, where there is no guiding PERB precedent and the legal issues involved are technical and complex pension laws outside PERB’s normal jurisdiction, it is appropriate to remand matter for issuance of complaint so that the issues may be decided upon a full evidentiary record.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge

In processing an unfair practice charge, the role of a Board agent is to investigate the charge to determine if an unfair practice has been committed, but the Board’s regulations do not “empower agents to rule on the ultimate merits of a charge.” (Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466 (Eastside); PERB Regs. 32620 and 32640.) Pursuant to Eastside, a complaint may be issued to test viable competing theories of law. Although the Board’s role ordinarily is to resolve disputed questions of law, under the unique setting of this case, where there is no guiding PERB precedent and the legal issues involved are technical and complex pension laws outside PERB’s normal jurisdiction, it is appropriate to remand matter for issuance of complaint so that the issues may be decided upon a full evidentiary record.

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General

In processing an unfair practice charge, the role of a Board agent is to investigate the charge to determine if an unfair practice has been committed, but the Board’s regulations do not “empower agents to rule on the ultimate merits of a charge.” (Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466 (Eastside); PERB Regs. 32620 and 32640.) Pursuant to Eastside, a complaint may be issued to test viable competing theories of law. Although the Board’s role ordinarily is to resolve disputed questions of law, under the unique setting of this case, where there is no guiding PERB precedent and the legal issues involved are technical and complex pension laws outside PERB’s normal jurisdiction, it is appropriate to remand matter for issuance of complaint so that the issues may be decided upon a full evidentiary record.

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.02000 – Issuance of Complaint

In processing an unfair practice charge, the role of a Board agent is to investigate the charge to determine if an unfair practice has been committed, but the Board’s regulations do not “empower agents to rule on the ultimate merits of a charge.” (Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466 (Eastside); PERB Regs. 32620 and 32640.) Pursuant to Eastside, a complaint may be issued to test viable competing theories of law. Although the Board’s role ordinarily is to resolve disputed questions of law, under the unique setting of this case, where there is no guiding PERB precedent and the legal issues involved are technical and complex pension laws outside PERB’s normal jurisdiction, it is appropriate to remand matter for issuance of complaint so that the issues may be decided upon a full evidentiary record.