Decision 2480M – County of Trinity (United Public Employees of California, Local 792)

SA-CO-125-M

Decision Date: April 25, 2016

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 40
Perc Index: 171

Decision Headnotes

301.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; STRIKES, SLOWDOWNS AND WORK STOPPAGES
301.03000 – Post-Impasse

Because bargaining impasse was not broken, the bargaining obligation was not revived and the exclusive representative did not violate its duty to bargain in good faith by going out on strike; impasse suspends the parties’ obligation to bargain only until “changed circumstances” demonstrate that an agreement may be possible; the making of “concessions” is key to finding a change in circumstances sufficient to revive the duty to bargain; a handful of non-substantive e-mail exchanges exploring the parties’ interest in and availability for a meeting did not rise to the level of changed circumstances sufficient to revive the bargaining obligation, as there was no evidence that either party made a substantial concession from an earlier position and was genuinely committed to a new bargaining position; because the parties were at impasse, the employer had the option to refuse the exclusive representative’s request to meet, to respond to the request with a concession substantial enough to revive the bargaining obligation or to unilaterally impose its last, best and final offer; by instead insisting that the duty to bargain was revived, the employer foreclosed all its options.

802.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNLAWFUL STRIKES AND WORK STOPPAGES
802.01000 – In General

Because bargaining impasse was not broken, the bargaining obligation was not revived and the exclusive representative did not violate its duty to bargain in good faith by going out on strike; impasse suspends the parties’ obligation to bargain only until “changed circumstances” demonstrate that an agreement may be possible; the making of “concessions” is key to finding a change in circumstances sufficient to revive the duty to bargain; a handful of non-substantive e-mail exchanges exploring the parties’ interest in and availability for a meeting did not rise to the level of changed circumstances sufficient to revive the bargaining obligation, as there was no evidence that either party made a substantial concession from an earlier position and was genuinely committed to a new bargaining position; because the parties were at impasse, the employer had the option to refuse the exclusive representative’s request to meet, to respond to the request with a concession substantial enough to revive the bargaining obligation or to unilaterally impose its last, best and final offer; by instead insisting that the duty to bargain was revived, the employer foreclosed all its options.

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

Because bargaining impasse was not broken, the bargaining obligation was not revived and the exclusive representative did not violate its duty to bargain in good faith by going out on strike; impasse suspends the parties’ obligation to bargain only until “changed circumstances” demonstrate that an agreement may be possible; the making of “concessions” is key to finding a change in circumstances sufficient to revive the duty to bargain; a handful of non-substantive e-mail exchanges exploring the parties’ interest in and availability for a meeting did not rise to the level of changed circumstances sufficient to revive the bargaining obligation, as there was no evidence that either party made a substantial concession from an earlier position and was genuinely committed to a new bargaining position; because the parties were at impasse, the employer had the option to refuse the exclusive representative’s request to meet, to respond to the request with a concession substantial enough to revive the bargaining obligation or to unilaterally impose its last, best and final offer; by instead insisting that the duty to bargain was revived, the employer foreclosed all its options.