Decision 2491M – City of Montebello
LA-CE-904-M
Decision Date: June 30, 2016
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The exclusive representative of a unit of City employees excepted to a proposed decision in which an administrative law judge had dismissed allegations that the City had unilaterally changed employee classifications by assigning out of class work to two employees.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the proposed decision. Charging party failed to prove its prima facie case of a unilateral change in employee job duties where misclassification affected only two employees in separate departments with no common supervision or policy. Charging party did not establish that two apparently separate breaches of its memorandum of understanding had a generalized effect and continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment where the City denied a grievance on procedural grounds and did not argue that it was authorized by statute, contract or other legal authority to assign duties in contravention of established classifications and memorandum of understanding.
Perc Vol: 41
Perc Index: 30
Decision Headnotes
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
In determining whether a party has violated its statutory duty to bargain, PERB uses both a per se and totality of circumstances test, on the specific conduct involved and its effect on the negotiating process. The tests typically rely on different kinds of evidence because they involve a failure to comply with different components of the statutory language. A unilateral change or other per se violation typically involves a failure to meet or follow the procedures for bargaining, while bargaining in bad faith is a failure to do so with the requisite state of mind. A unilateral change to negotiable subjects is regarded as a species of per se violations of the bargaining obligation because of its incompatibility with the bi-lateral scheme for collective bargaining and its inherently destabilizing and detrimental effect on the bargaining relationship, irrespective of intent. The Board rejected charging party’s exception arguing that a unilateral change may be evaluated under a totality of circumstances if the evidence fails to meet the criteria for a per se violation.
602.03000 – Change In Policy
Charging party failed to prove its prima facie case of a unilateral change in employee job duties where misclassification affected only two employees in separate departments with no common supervision or policy. Charging party did not establish that two apparently separate breaches of its memorandum of understanding had a generalized effect and continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment where the City denied a grievance on procedural grounds and did not argue that it was authorized by statute, contract or other legal authority to assign duties in contravention of established classifications and memorandum of understanding.
602.05000 – Impact and Extent
Charging party failed to prove its prima facie case of a unilateral change in employee job duties where misclassification affected only two employees in separate departments with no common supervision or policy. Charging party did not establish that two apparently separate breaches of its memorandum of understanding had a generalized effect and continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment where the City denied a grievance on procedural grounds and did not argue that it was authorized by statute, contract or other legal authority to assign duties in contravention of established classifications and memorandum of understanding.
602.06000 – Change in Past Practice
Charging party failed to prove its prima facie case of a unilateral change in employee job duties where misclassification affected only two employees in separate departments with no common supervision or policy. Charging party did not establish that two apparently separate breaches of its memorandum of understanding had a generalized effect and continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment where the City denied a grievance on procedural grounds and did not argue that it was authorized by statute, contract or other legal authority to assign duties in contravention of established classifications and memorandum of understanding.
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint
Pursuant to PERB’s statutory and regulatory authority, a Board agent may “disregard any error or defect in the complaint that does not substantially affect the rights of the parties.” Where the issues actually litigated at hearing and argued in parties’ briefs involved a job classification not identified in the complaint, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s sua sponte amendment to the complaint to conform to the evidence and issues presented at hearing. Distinguishing City of Inglewood (2015) PERB Decision No. 2424-M.
1103.04000 – Amendments
Pursuant to PERB’s statutory and regulatory authority, a Board agent may “disregard any error or defect in the complaint that does not substantially affect the rights of the parties.” Where the issues actually litigated at hearing and argued in parties’ briefs involved a job classification not identified in the complaint, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s sua sponte amendment to the complaint to conform to the evidence and issues presented at hearing. Distinguishing City of Inglewood (2015) PERB Decision No. 2424-M.
1104.01000 – In General; Conduct of Hearing
Pursuant to PERB’s statutory and regulatory authority, a Board agent may “disregard any error or defect in the complaint that does not substantially affect the rights of the parties.” Where the issues actually litigated at hearing and argued in parties’ briefs involved a job classification not identified in the complaint, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s sua sponte amendment to the complaint to conform to the evidence and issues presented at hearing. Distinguishing City of Inglewood (2015) PERB Decision No. 2424-M.
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations
Pursuant to PERB’s statutory and regulatory authority, a Board agent may “disregard any error or defect in the complaint that does not substantially affect the rights of the parties.” Where the issues actually litigated at hearing and argued in parties’ briefs involved a job classification not identified in the complaint, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s sua sponte amendment to the complaint to conform to the evidence and issues presented at hearing. Distinguishing City of Inglewood (2015) PERB Decision No. 2424-M.
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32640, subdivision (a), a Board agent may “disregard any error or defect in the complaint that does not substantially affect the rights of the parties,” which includes the authority of a hearing officer to amend a complaint on his or her own motion where the amendment is necessary to conform to the evidence and issues presented at hearing. Where the issues actually litigated at hearing and argued in parties’ briefs involved a job classification not identified in the complaint, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s sua sponte amendment to the complaint to conform to the evidence and issues presented at hearing. Distinguishing City of Inglewood (2015) PERB Decision No. 2424-M.
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)
Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32640, subdivision (a), a Board agent may “disregard any error or defect in the complaint that does not substantially affect the rights of the parties,” which includes the authority of a hearing officer to amend a complaint on his or her own motion where the amendment is necessary to conform to the evidence and issues presented at hearing. Where the issues actually litigated at hearing and argued in parties’ briefs involved a job classification not identified in the complaint, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s sua sponte amendment to the complaint to conform to the evidence and issues presented at hearing. Distinguishing City of Inglewood (2015) PERB Decision No. 2424-M.