Decision 2308M – City of Santa Rosa

SF-CE-768-M

Decision Date: March 8, 2013

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.04000 – When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand

Unilateral impositions after the completion of impasse procedures do not impose a collective bargaining agreement with a duration clause limiting negotiations for a specified period. The employer’s request to the union to convene negotiations following implementation of a last, best and final offer does not demonstrate bad faith bargaining.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.05000 – Post-Impasse

Unilateral impositions after the completion of impasse procedures do not impose a collective bargaining agreement with a duration clause limiting negotiations for a specified period.

1407.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
1407.02000 – Amendments to Statute

The California Legislature’s 2000 amendment to the MMBA embodied in AB 1852 did not create an exception to the rule that an imposition does not establish a set duration for imposed terms and conditions of employment. The legislative history of AB 1852 contains nothing to support the claim that there is a one-year hiatus on the union’s duty to bargain. The legislative intent was to declare that the employer’s post-impasse imposition does not establish an MOU and therefore does not extinguish the right of the employee organization to negotiate prior to the adoption of the agency’s annual budget, or "as otherwise required by law." (MMBA section 3505.4.) The amended statute is thus a sword enabling the union to assert bargaining rights after imposition. It is not a shield protecting the union from legitimate demands to bargain from the employer.