Decision 2315M – County of Sacramento
Decision Date: April 15, 2013
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged that the county unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment when it removed from certain employees the benefit of taking their county-issued vehicles home at the end of the work day.
Disposition: The Board upheld the dismissal of the charge, holding that in order to perfect a demand to bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable decision, the union must indicate that it seeks to bargain effects and identify the matters within the scope of bargaining foreseeably affected by the change. In this case, the union failed to demand to bargain over effects and failed to indicate any matter within the scope of bargaining that was foreseeably affected by the county’s decision to end the home vehicle retention assignment for employees.
Perc Vol: 37
Perc Index: 206
601.04000 – When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Once and employer makes a firm decision to change negotiable terms and conditions of employment, it must notify the exclusive representative and provide it a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. Union’s demand to negotiate over effects of a non-negotiable management decision must indicate that it is effects, as opposed to the decision, over which the union seeks to negotiate, and the demand must identify the matters within scope potentially affected by the proposed management change. Mere protests or objections to the employer’s proposed change do not suffice as a demand to negotiate.