Decision 2504E – Anaheim Union High School District

LA-CE-5741-E

Decision Date: October 14, 2016

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 41
Perc Index: 80

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)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

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)

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.04000 – Conditional Bargaining

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.01000 – In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02053 – Financial Proposals

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02064 – Hours of Work

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02076 – Lay-Offs

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02115 – Reduction in Hours/Workday/Worktime/Workyear

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02125 – Salaries or Wages

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02157 – Working Day/Work Time

Because the parties’ discussions concerned mandatory subjects, including the number and identify of employees to be laid off, and the wages and hours of remaining employees, the Board dismissed the charging party’s allegation that the employer had unlawfully insisted to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining by proposing various economic concessions within the framework of alternative shorter and longer lists of employees to be laid off. Although an employer’s decision to layoff is not subject to bargaining, the negotiable effects of that decision include the timing, number and identity of employees to be laid off. Additionally, alternatives to layoffs, including furloughs, reductions in employee hours or other concessions in pay or benefits, are negotiable because they necessarily affect enumerated subjects, including wages and hours. (pp. 10-11.)

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

An employer may lawfully propose withdrawal of pending grievances and/or unfair practice charges as part of a settlement involving mandatory subjects of bargaining; however, insisting to impasse “in the face of a clear and express refusal by the union to bargain” on the withdrawal of pending grievances or unfair practice charges or conditioning settlement of mandatory subjects on the withdrawal of grievances or unfair practice charges is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. Because employer’s proposal to limit its future liability by re-negotiating the parties’ contract language governing employee hours was within the scope of mandatory subjects for bargaining, the charging party’s allegation of insistence to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining was dismissed. (pp. 15-16.)

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.03000 – Decision vs Effects Bargaining

An employer may lawfully propose withdrawal of pending grievances and/or unfair practice charges as part of a settlement involving mandatory subjects of bargaining; however, insisting to impasse “in the face of a clear and express refusal by the union to bargain” on the withdrawal of pending grievances or unfair practice charges or conditioning settlement of mandatory subjects on the withdrawal of grievances or unfair practice charges is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. Because employer’s proposal to limit its future liability by re-negotiating the parties’ contract language governing employee hours was within the scope of mandatory subjects for bargaining, the charging party’s allegation of insistence to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining was dismissed. (pp. 15-16.)

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)

An employer may lawfully propose withdrawal of pending grievances and/or unfair practice charges as part of a settlement involving mandatory subjects of bargaining; however, insisting to impasse “in the face of a clear and express refusal by the union to bargain” on the withdrawal of pending grievances or unfair practice charges or conditioning settlement of mandatory subjects on the withdrawal of grievances or unfair practice charges is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. Because employer’s proposal to limit its future liability by re-negotiating the parties’ contract language governing employee hours was within the scope of mandatory subjects for bargaining, the charging party’s allegation of insistence to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining was dismissed. (pp. 15-16.)

605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.04000 – Conditional Bargaining

An employer may lawfully propose withdrawal of pending grievances and/or unfair practice charges as part of a settlement involving mandatory subjects of bargaining; however, insisting to impasse “in the face of a clear and express refusal by the union to bargain” on the withdrawal of pending grievances or unfair practice charges or conditioning settlement of mandatory subjects on the withdrawal of grievances or unfair practice charges is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. Because employer’s proposal to limit its future liability by re-negotiating the parties’ contract language governing employee hours was within the scope of mandatory subjects for bargaining, the charging party’s allegation of insistence to impasse on a permissive subject of bargaining was dismissed. (pp. 15-16.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

While the Board applies a de novo standard of review and is free to draw its own conclusions from the record, because an ALJ is in a much better position than the Board to accurately make credibility determinations based on live testimony, “the Board has determined that it will normally afford deference to administrative law judges’ findings of fact involving credibility determinations unless they are unsupported by the record as a whole.” [citations omitted.] Because the record as a whole in this case supported the ALJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations, which were based on a variety of observational and non-observational factors, and because the excepting party provided no grounds to undermine these findings and determinations, the Board declined to disturb the proposed decision finding that the charging party failed to prove the complaint’s allegations of bad-faith bargaining. (p. 14.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.02000 – Weight Given to ALJ’s Proposed Decision: Findings, Conclusions, Credibility Resolutions

While the Board applies a de novo standard of review and is free to draw its own conclusions from the record, because an ALJ is in a much better position than the Board to accurately make credibility determinations based on live testimony, “the Board has determined that it will normally afford deference to administrative law judges’ findings of fact involving credibility determinations unless they are unsupported by the record as a whole.” [citations omitted.] Because the record as a whole in this case supported the ALJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations, which were based on a variety of observational and non-observational factors, and because the excepting party provided no grounds to undermine these findings and determinations, the Board declined to disturb the proposed decision finding that the charging party failed to prove the complaint’s allegations of bad-faith bargaining. (p. 14.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board

While the Board applies a de novo standard of review and is free to draw its own conclusions from the record, because an ALJ is in a much better position than the Board to accurately make credibility determinations based on live testimony, “the Board has determined that it will normally afford deference to administrative law judges’ findings of fact involving credibility determinations unless they are unsupported by the record as a whole.” [citations omitted.] Because the record as a whole in this case supported the ALJ’s factual findings and credibility determinations, which were based on a variety of observational and non-observational factors, and because the excepting party provided no grounds to undermine these findings and determinations, the Board declined to disturb the proposed decision finding that the charging party failed to prove the complaint’s allegations of bad-faith bargaining. (p. 14.)