Decision 2505M – City of Roseville

SA-CE-757-M

Decision Date: November 30, 2016

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 41
Perc Index: 97

Decision Headnotes

604.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
604.01000 – In General

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.01000 – In General

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

A surface bargaining complaint complies with PERB Regulations and decisional law when it alleges that, by the totality of its conduct, “including but not limited to,” the specific conduct described in the complaint, the respondent has failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. Notwithstanding the phrase “including but not limited to” or similar language, the complaint identifies the specific acts or indicia that are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while also giving the respondent notice that, under PERB’s totality of conduct test, the specific acts or indicia described in the complaint are not necessarily exhaustive of the evidence the charging party may present at hearing to prove the surface bargaining allegation. (p. 12.)

104.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD
104.01000 – Authority of Board In General; Validity and Application of Regulations (See also 102.01)

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.02000 – Issuance of Complaint

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.01000 – In General

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.01000 – In General

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

Although a charge must include a clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice (PERB Reg. 32615, subd. (a)(5)), a complaint alleging surface bargaining need not list every possible indicator of bad faith that may be presented at the hearing. Under PERB’s fact pleading standard, the charging party must include the essential facts (often described as the “who, what, when, where and how” of the charge) with sufficient specificity to permit the Board agent to determine whether “the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and [whether] the charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.” However, PERB does not require the charging party to identify or provide all of its evidence in the charge. (pp. 12-13.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General

Conduct which is alleged in an unfair practice charge as evidence of bad-faith bargaining but not addressed in the pre-complaint investigation and not included in the complaint is proper for consideration at hearing because, under PERB Regulation 32620, the charging party must have notice in writing of any deficiencies in the charge before an allegation is dismissed. By restricting a charging party to only those indicia of bad faith specified in the complaint, where other indicia have been alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint, PERB would effectively dismiss charge allegations without notice of deficiencies to the charging party. PERB cannot change its Regulations through decisional law. (pp. 13-14.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint

Conduct which is alleged in an unfair practice charge as evidence of bad-faith bargaining but not addressed in the pre-complaint investigation and not included in the complaint is proper for consideration at hearing because, under PERB Regulation 32620, the charging party must have notice in writing of any deficiencies in the charge before an allegation is dismissed. By restricting a charging party to only those indicia of bad faith specified in the complaint, where other indicia have been alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint, PERB would effectively dismiss charge allegations without notice of deficiencies to the charging party. PERB cannot change its Regulations through decisional law. (pp. 13-14.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.01000 – In General

Conduct which is alleged in an unfair practice charge as evidence of bad-faith bargaining but not addressed in the pre-complaint investigation and not included in the complaint is proper for consideration at hearing because, under PERB Regulation 32620, the charging party must have notice in writing of any deficiencies in the charge before an allegation is dismissed. By restricting a charging party to only those indicia of bad faith specified in the complaint, where other indicia have been alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint, PERB would effectively dismiss charge allegations without notice of deficiencies to the charging party. PERB cannot change its Regulations through decisional law. (pp. 13-14.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

Conduct which is alleged in an unfair practice charge as evidence of bad-faith bargaining but not addressed in the pre-complaint investigation and not included in the complaint is proper for consideration at hearing because, under PERB Regulation 32620, the charging party must have notice in writing of any deficiencies in the charge before an allegation is dismissed. By restricting a charging party to only those indicia of bad faith specified in the complaint, where other indicia have been alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint, PERB would effectively dismiss charge allegations without notice of deficiencies to the charging party. PERB cannot change its Regulations through decisional law. (pp. 13-14.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

Conduct which is alleged in an unfair practice charge as evidence of bad-faith bargaining but not addressed in the pre-complaint investigation and not included in the complaint is proper for consideration at hearing because, under PERB Regulation 32620, the charging party must have notice in writing of any deficiencies in the charge before an allegation is dismissed. By restricting a charging party to only those indicia of bad faith specified in the complaint, where other indicia have been alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint, PERB would effectively dismiss charge allegations without notice of deficiencies to the charging party. PERB cannot change its Regulations through decisional law. (pp. 13-14.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

Conduct which is alleged in an unfair practice charge as evidence of bad-faith bargaining but not addressed in the pre-complaint investigation and not included in the complaint is proper for consideration at hearing because, under PERB Regulation 32620, the charging party must have notice in writing of any deficiencies in the charge before an allegation is dismissed. By restricting a charging party to only those indicia of bad faith specified in the complaint, where other indicia have been alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint, PERB would effectively dismiss charge allegations without notice of deficiencies to the charging party. PERB cannot change its Regulations through decisional law. (pp. 13-14.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

Conduct which is alleged in an unfair practice charge as evidence of bad-faith bargaining but not addressed in the pre-complaint investigation and not included in the complaint is proper for consideration at hearing because, under PERB Regulation 32620, the charging party must have notice in writing of any deficiencies in the charge before an allegation is dismissed. By restricting a charging party to only those indicia of bad faith specified in the complaint, where other indicia have been alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint, PERB would effectively dismiss charge allegations without notice of deficiencies to the charging party. PERB cannot change its Regulations through decisional law. (pp. 13-14.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

As a general rule, a complaint alleging surface bargaining need identify only those factual allegations that, in the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while other facts, which are probative of the respondent’s conduct or state of mind during negotiations and which were alleged in the charge, may be established through competent evidence at hearing and appropriately considered, without amending the complaint. (p. 15.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge

As a general rule, a complaint alleging surface bargaining need identify only those factual allegations that, in the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while other facts, which are probative of the respondent’s conduct or state of mind during negotiations and which were alleged in the charge, may be established through competent evidence at hearing and appropriately considered, without amending the complaint. (p. 15.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

As a general rule, a complaint alleging surface bargaining need identify only those factual allegations that, in the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while other facts, which are probative of the respondent’s conduct or state of mind during negotiations and which were alleged in the charge, may be established through competent evidence at hearing and appropriately considered, without amending the complaint. (p. 15.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General

As a general rule, a complaint alleging surface bargaining need identify only those factual allegations that, in the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while other facts, which are probative of the respondent’s conduct or state of mind during negotiations and which were alleged in the charge, may be established through competent evidence at hearing and appropriately considered, without amending the complaint. (p. 15.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint

As a general rule, a complaint alleging surface bargaining need identify only those factual allegations that, in the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while other facts, which are probative of the respondent’s conduct or state of mind during negotiations and which were alleged in the charge, may be established through competent evidence at hearing and appropriately considered, without amending the complaint. (p. 15.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.04000 – Amendments

As a general rule, a complaint alleging surface bargaining need identify only those factual allegations that, in the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while other facts, which are probative of the respondent’s conduct or state of mind during negotiations and which were alleged in the charge, may be established through competent evidence at hearing and appropriately considered, without amending the complaint. (p. 15.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.01000 – In General

As a general rule, a complaint alleging surface bargaining need identify only those factual allegations that, in the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while other facts, which are probative of the respondent’s conduct or state of mind during negotiations and which were alleged in the charge, may be established through competent evidence at hearing and appropriately considered, without amending the complaint. (p. 15.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

As a general rule, a complaint alleging surface bargaining need identify only those factual allegations that, in the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, are sufficient to state a prima facie case, while other facts, which are probative of the respondent’s conduct or state of mind during negotiations and which were alleged in the charge, may be established through competent evidence at hearing and appropriately considered, without amending the complaint. (p. 15.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

Where conduct allegedly constitutes both evidence of the respondent’s bad faith and a separate unfair practice, the essential facts for each theory of liability should be stated in the complaint and identified as separate unfair practices. A respondent is entitled to notice of the issues in dispute, so that it can preserve documents and secure witnesses, or expect repose as to those unfair practice allegations that are dismissed, withdrawn, abandoned or otherwise disposed of during the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation. (PERB Regs. 32620, subd. (c), 32630, 32640, subds. (a), (b).) Identifying the essential factual allegations and the theories of liability in a complaint is necessary to provide adequate notice and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the issues, including an opportunity for the respondent to raise any affirmative defenses specific to each theory of liability. (pp. 15-16.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge

Where conduct allegedly constitutes both evidence of the respondent’s bad faith and a separate unfair practice, the essential facts for each theory of liability should be stated in the complaint and identified as separate unfair practices. A respondent is entitled to notice of the issues in dispute, so that it can preserve documents and secure witnesses, or expect repose as to those unfair practice allegations that are dismissed, withdrawn, abandoned or otherwise disposed of during the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation. (PERB Regs. 32620, subd. (c), 32630, 32640, subds. (a), (b).) Identifying the essential factual allegations and the theories of liability in a complaint is necessary to provide adequate notice and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the issues, including an opportunity for the respondent to raise any affirmative defenses specific to each theory of liability. (pp. 15-16.)

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements

Where conduct allegedly constitutes both evidence of the respondent’s bad faith and a separate unfair practice, the essential facts for each theory of liability should be stated in the complaint and identified as separate unfair practices. A respondent is entitled to notice of the issues in dispute, so that it can preserve documents and secure witnesses, or expect repose as to those unfair practice allegations that are dismissed, withdrawn, abandoned or otherwise disposed of during the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation. (PERB Regs. 32620, subd. (c), 32630, 32640, subds. (a), (b).) Identifying the essential factual allegations and the theories of liability in a complaint is necessary to provide adequate notice and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the issues, including an opportunity for the respondent to raise any affirmative defenses specific to each theory of liability. (pp. 15-16.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General

Where conduct allegedly constitutes both evidence of the respondent’s bad faith and a separate unfair practice, the essential facts for each theory of liability should be stated in the complaint and identified as separate unfair practices. A respondent is entitled to notice of the issues in dispute, so that it can preserve documents and secure witnesses, or expect repose as to those unfair practice allegations that are dismissed, withdrawn, abandoned or otherwise disposed of during the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation. (PERB Regs. 32620, subd. (c), 32630, 32640, subds. (a), (b).) Identifying the essential factual allegations and the theories of liability in a complaint is necessary to provide adequate notice and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the issues, including an opportunity for the respondent to raise any affirmative defenses specific to each theory of liability. (pp. 15-16.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint

Where conduct allegedly constitutes both evidence of the respondent’s bad faith and a separate unfair practice, the essential facts for each theory of liability should be stated in the complaint and identified as separate unfair practices. A respondent is entitled to notice of the issues in dispute, so that it can preserve documents and secure witnesses, or expect repose as to those unfair practice allegations that are dismissed, withdrawn, abandoned or otherwise disposed of during the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation. (PERB Regs. 32620, subd. (c), 32630, 32640, subds. (a), (b).) Identifying the essential factual allegations and the theories of liability in a complaint is necessary to provide adequate notice and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the issues, including an opportunity for the respondent to raise any affirmative defenses specific to each theory of liability. (pp. 15-16.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.04000 – Amendments

Where conduct allegedly constitutes both evidence of the respondent’s bad faith and a separate unfair practice, the essential facts for each theory of liability should be stated in the complaint and identified as separate unfair practices. A respondent is entitled to notice of the issues in dispute, so that it can preserve documents and secure witnesses, or expect repose as to those unfair practice allegations that are dismissed, withdrawn, abandoned or otherwise disposed of during the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation. (PERB Regs. 32620, subd. (c), 32630, 32640, subds. (a), (b).) Identifying the essential factual allegations and the theories of liability in a complaint is necessary to provide adequate notice and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the issues, including an opportunity for the respondent to raise any affirmative defenses specific to each theory of liability. (pp. 15-16.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.01000 – In General

Where conduct allegedly constitutes both evidence of the respondent’s bad faith and a separate unfair practice, the essential facts for each theory of liability should be stated in the complaint and identified as separate unfair practices. A respondent is entitled to notice of the issues in dispute, so that it can preserve documents and secure witnesses, or expect repose as to those unfair practice allegations that are dismissed, withdrawn, abandoned or otherwise disposed of during the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation. (PERB Regs. 32620, subd. (c), 32630, 32640, subds. (a), (b).) Identifying the essential factual allegations and the theories of liability in a complaint is necessary to provide adequate notice and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the issues, including an opportunity for the respondent to raise any affirmative defenses specific to each theory of liability. (pp. 15-16.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

Where conduct allegedly constitutes both evidence of the respondent’s bad faith and a separate unfair practice, the essential facts for each theory of liability should be stated in the complaint and identified as separate unfair practices. A respondent is entitled to notice of the issues in dispute, so that it can preserve documents and secure witnesses, or expect repose as to those unfair practice allegations that are dismissed, withdrawn, abandoned or otherwise disposed of during the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation. (PERB Regs. 32620, subd. (c), 32630, 32640, subds. (a), (b).) Identifying the essential factual allegations and the theories of liability in a complaint is necessary to provide adequate notice and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the issues, including an opportunity for the respondent to raise any affirmative defenses specific to each theory of liability. (pp. 15-16.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)

Where conduct allegedly constitutes both evidence of the respondent’s bad faith and a separate unfair practice, the essential facts for each theory of liability should be stated in the complaint and identified as separate unfair practices. A respondent is entitled to notice of the issues in dispute, so that it can preserve documents and secure witnesses, or expect repose as to those unfair practice allegations that are dismissed, withdrawn, abandoned or otherwise disposed of during the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation. (PERB Regs. 32620, subd. (c), 32630, 32640, subds. (a), (b).) Identifying the essential factual allegations and the theories of liability in a complaint is necessary to provide adequate notice and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the issues, including an opportunity for the respondent to raise any affirmative defenses specific to each theory of liability. (pp. 15-16.)

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)

Where conduct allegedly constitutes both evidence of the respondent’s bad faith and a separate unfair practice, the essential facts for each theory of liability should be stated in the complaint and identified as separate unfair practices. A respondent is entitled to notice of the issues in dispute, so that it can preserve documents and secure witnesses, or expect repose as to those unfair practice allegations that are dismissed, withdrawn, abandoned or otherwise disposed of during the Office of the General Counsel’s investigation. (PERB Regs. 32620, subd. (c), 32630, 32640, subds. (a), (b).) Identifying the essential factual allegations and the theories of liability in a complaint is necessary to provide adequate notice and ensure a full and fair adjudication of the issues, including an opportunity for the respondent to raise any affirmative defenses specific to each theory of liability. (pp. 15-16.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

Unless alleged as separate unfair practices, which would expand the respondent’s liability beyond what is already alleged in the complaint, indicators of bad faith alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint were proper for consideration as part of the totality of evidence considered in a surface bargaining case without resort to PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. As its name suggests, the unalleged violation doctrine applies when, if proven, factual allegations presented at hearing but not included in the complaint would constitute a separate unfair practice in addition to the theories of liability set forth in the complaint. [citations omitted.] Because surface bargaining was alleged in the complaint, there was no additional or unalleged surface bargaining “violation” to consider. Although recognized as evidence of bad faith, making predictably unacceptable proposals and prematurely declaring impasse are not independent unfair practices. (p. 17.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

Although charging party’s allegations of making predictably unacceptable proposals and prematurely declaring impasse were not alleged in the complaint, these two allegations were nonetheless appropriate for consideration by analogy to the unalleged violations doctrine. Although the complaint is the operative document for framing the issues for hearing, the Board has reasoned, by analogy to the unalleged violations doctrine, that conduct which constitutes an essential element of an unfair practice, but which was not alleged in the complaint, may still be considered, if it is related to the claims in the complaint, and if the parties have had full opportunity to litigate the issues. (pp. 19-20.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

Unless alleged as separate unfair practices, which would expand the respondent’s liability beyond what is already alleged in the complaint, indicators of bad faith alleged in the charge but not included in the complaint were proper for consideration as part of the totality of evidence considered in a surface bargaining case without resort to PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. As its name suggests, the unalleged violation doctrine applies when, if proven, factual allegations presented at hearing but not included in the complaint would constitute a separate unfair practice in addition to the theories of liability set forth in the complaint. [citations omitted.] Because surface bargaining was alleged in the complaint, there was no additional or unalleged surface bargaining “violation” to consider. Although recognized as evidence of bad faith, making predictably unacceptable proposals and prematurely declaring impasse are not independent unfair practices. (p. 17.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

The language of PERB Regulation 32648 governing amendments at hearing and the policy favoring liberal amendment of pleadings make it the respondent’s burden to show that a proposed amendment would result in undue prejudice. Absent a showing of undue prejudice, a timely amendment closely related to the allegations in a pending complaint should be allowed in order to serve the principles of economy and finality. By contrast, the more elaborate test for considering unalleged violations presumes prejudice, unless the charging party can show otherwise by meeting each of the criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations test. (p. 22, fn. 15.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

The language of PERB Regulation 32648 governing amendments at hearing and the policy favoring liberal amendment of pleadings make it the respondent’s burden to show that a proposed amendment would result in undue prejudice. Absent a showing of undue prejudice, a timely amendment closely related to the allegations in a pending complaint should be allowed in order to serve the principles of economy and finality. By contrast, the more elaborate test for considering unalleged violations presumes prejudice, unless the charging party can show otherwise by meeting each of the criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations test. (p. 22, fn. 15.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

So long as the respondent is informed of the substance of the charge and afforded the basic, appropriate elements of procedural due process, it cannot complain of a variance between administrative pleadings and proof. (p. 23.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint

A charging party who wishes to litigate allegations of per se bargaining violations or other independent unfair practices not identified in the complaint must either amend the complaint to identify the additional theories of liability or satisfy the notice requirement and other criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. Although a Board agent or the Board itself may disregard minor defects or variations between the complaint allegations and the issues framed at the hearing or actually litigated by the parties, an additional theory of liability necessarily affects the scope of any Board-ordered remedy and substantially affects the rights of the parties. Because Charging Party’s allegations that the Respondent unilaterally implemented an MOU and that it imposed terms not reasonably contemplated by its LBFO, if proven, would constitute separate per se violations of the City’s duty to bargain, and because these theories of liability were not set forth in the complaint, the Board could only consider them if they satisfied the criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations test. (pp. 24-25.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.04000 – Amendments

A charging party who wishes to litigate allegations of per se bargaining violations or other independent unfair practices not identified in the complaint must either amend the complaint to identify the additional theories of liability or satisfy the notice requirement and other criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. Although a Board agent or the Board itself may disregard minor defects or variations between the complaint allegations and the issues framed at the hearing or actually litigated by the parties, an additional theory of liability necessarily affects the scope of any Board-ordered remedy and substantially affects the rights of the parties. Because Charging Party’s allegations that the Respondent unilaterally implemented an MOU and that it imposed terms not reasonably contemplated by its LBFO, if proven, would constitute separate per se violations of the City’s duty to bargain, and because these theories of liability were not set forth in the complaint, the Board could only consider them if they satisfied the criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations test. (pp. 24-25.)

1105.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; EVIDENCE
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged

A charging party who wishes to litigate allegations of per se bargaining violations or other independent unfair practices not identified in the complaint must either amend the complaint to identify the additional theories of liability or satisfy the notice requirement and other criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. Although a Board agent or the Board itself may disregard minor defects or variations between the complaint allegations and the issues framed at the hearing or actually litigated by the parties, an additional theory of liability necessarily affects the scope of any Board-ordered remedy and substantially affects the rights of the parties. Because Charging Party’s allegations that the Respondent unilaterally implemented an MOU and that it imposed terms not reasonably contemplated by its LBFO, if proven, would constitute separate per se violations of the City’s duty to bargain, and because these theories of liability were not set forth in the complaint, the Board could only consider them if they satisfied the criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations test. (pp. 24-25.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

A charging party who wishes to litigate allegations of per se bargaining violations or other independent unfair practices not identified in the complaint must either amend the complaint to identify the additional theories of liability or satisfy the notice requirement and other criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations doctrine. Although a Board agent or the Board itself may disregard minor defects or variations between the complaint allegations and the issues framed at the hearing or actually litigated by the parties, an additional theory of liability necessarily affects the scope of any Board-ordered remedy and substantially affects the rights of the parties. Because Charging Party’s allegations that the Respondent unilaterally implemented an MOU and that it imposed terms not reasonably contemplated by its LBFO, if proven, would constitute separate per se violations of the City’s duty to bargain, and because these theories of liability were not set forth in the complaint, the Board could only consider them if they satisfied the criteria of PERB’s unalleged violations test. (pp. 24-25.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

Charging Party’s allegation that the City had unilaterally imposed a Memorandum of Understanding, in violation of MMBA section 3505.7, and its allegation that the City had unilaterally imposed terms materially different from those in its LBFO, arose from the same City Council action, but were not sufficiently identified as separate theories of liability at hearing. Because the requirement of notice is not satisfied, the Board could not consider the illegal MOU allegation under PERB’s unalleged violations test. (pp. 26-27.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

Although the City’s brief before the ALJ argued that it did not have adequate notice and opportunity to defend against an allegation that it had imposed terms different from those in its LBFO, it also acknowledged that this allegation had never been formally dismissed and that it had been raised in the charging party’s opening statement at hearing. The City’s brief also included citations in the record in which this issue was the subject of witness testimony. Accordingly, the notice requirement of PERB’s unalleged violations test was satisfied. (pp. 27-28.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

Where a party argues that the same facts constitute separate unfair practices, one alleged in the complaint and one unalleged, the separate theories of liability are intimately related to one another and involve the same course of conduct. Because they involve the same course of conduct, the fact that one theory was included in the complaint necessarily means that the other, unalleged theory is also timely. (p. 28.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

Under PERB’s test for unalleged violations, the requirement that a matter be “fully litigated” is satisfied when both parties have presented evidence on the issue, including submission of one or more joint exhibits reference or pertaining to the unalleged matter. (p. 29.)

605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.01000 – Outright Refusal to Bargain

Where parties tentatively agreed to negotiate “Other Post-Employment Benefits” separate from MOU negotiations and no other evidence was presented as to the importance of that subject or whether the parties’ failure to reach agreement on it contributed in any meaningful way to the breakdown in negotiations, Board declined to disturb ALJ’s finding that negotiations had reached a bona fide impasse as the result of good-faith bargaining. Impasse refers to an overall deadlock in negotiations. An employer may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and then bargain to impasse only as to that subject and impose its proposal, while refusing to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. Although impasse may result from disagreement over a single subject, that subject must be of such critical and overriding importance to the parties that disagreement on that subject alone causes an overall breakdown in negotiations such that further bargaining over any subject would be futile. (pp. 33-35.)

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

Where parties tentatively agreed to negotiate “Other Post-Employment Benefits” separate from MOU negotiations and no other evidence was presented as to the importance of that subject or whether the parties’ failure to reach agreement on it contributed in any meaningful way to the breakdown in negotiations, Board declined to disturb ALJ’s finding that negotiations had reached a bona fide impasse as the result of good-faith bargaining. Impasse refers to an overall deadlock in negotiations. An employer may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and then bargain to impasse only as to that subject and impose its proposal, while refusing to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. Although impasse may result from disagreement over a single subject, that subject must be of such critical and overriding importance to the parties that disagreement on that subject alone causes an overall breakdown in negotiations such that further bargaining over any subject would be futile. (pp. 33-35.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General

Where parties tentatively agreed to negotiate “Other Post-Employment Benefits” separate from MOU negotiations and no other evidence was presented as to the importance of that subject or whether the parties’ failure to reach agreement on it contributed in any meaningful way to the breakdown in negotiations, Board declined to disturb ALJ’s finding that negotiations had reached a bona fide impasse as the result of good-faith bargaining. Impasse refers to an overall deadlock in negotiations. An employer may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and then bargain to impasse only as to that subject and impose its proposal, while refusing to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. Although impasse may result from disagreement over a single subject, that subject must be of such critical and overriding importance to the parties that disagreement on that subject alone causes an overall breakdown in negotiations such that further bargaining over any subject would be futile. (pp. 33-35.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.15000 – Other

Where parties tentatively agreed to negotiate “Other Post-Employment Benefits” separate from MOU negotiations and no other evidence was presented as to the importance of that subject or whether the parties’ failure to reach agreement on it contributed in any meaningful way to the breakdown in negotiations, Board declined to disturb ALJ’s finding that negotiations had reached a bona fide impasse as the result of good-faith bargaining. Impasse refers to an overall deadlock in negotiations. An employer may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and then bargain to impasse only as to that subject and impose its proposal, while refusing to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. Although impasse may result from disagreement over a single subject, that subject must be of such critical and overriding importance to the parties that disagreement on that subject alone causes an overall breakdown in negotiations such that further bargaining over any subject would be futile. (pp. 33-35.)

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.02000 – Declaration/Determination of Impasse

Where parties tentatively agreed to negotiate “Other Post-Employment Benefits” separate from MOU negotiations and no other evidence was presented as to the importance of that subject or whether the parties’ failure to reach agreement on it contributed in any meaningful way to the breakdown in negotiations, Board declined to disturb ALJ’s finding that negotiations had reached a bona fide impasse as the result of good-faith bargaining. Impasse refers to an overall deadlock in negotiations. An employer may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and then bargain to impasse only as to that subject and impose its proposal, while refusing to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. Although impasse may result from disagreement over a single subject, that subject must be of such critical and overriding importance to the parties that disagreement on that subject alone causes an overall breakdown in negotiations such that further bargaining over any subject would be futile. (pp. 33-35.)

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

Although per se violations may also serve as indicia of bad faith in support of a surface bargaining allegation, there was no evidence that the City’s unilateral change to the employer paid member contribution, which was unilaterally imposed post-impasse, had contributed to the breakdown in pre-impasse negotiations or had undermined IBEW’s authority during the prior negotiations. Although the Board ordered the City to remedy the unilateral change violation, it dismissed the complaint’s separate bad-faith bargaining allegation where no other probative evidence of bad faith had been presented and the City’s unilateral change occurred after negotiations had already broken down. (p. 36.)

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.01000 – In General

Although per se violations may also serve as indicia of bad faith in support of a surface bargaining allegation, there was no evidence that the City’s unilateral change to the employer paid member contribution, which was unilaterally imposed post-impasse, had contributed to the breakdown in pre-impasse negotiations or had undermined IBEW’s authority during the prior negotiations. Although the Board ordered the City to remedy the unilateral change violation, it dismissed the complaint’s separate bad-faith bargaining allegation where no other probative evidence of bad faith had been presented and the City’s unilateral change occurred after negotiations had already broken down. (p. 36.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General

Although per se violations may also serve as indicia of bad faith in support of a surface bargaining allegation, there was no evidence that the City’s unilateral change to the employer paid member contribution, which was unilaterally imposed post-impasse, had contributed to the breakdown in pre-impasse negotiations or had undermined IBEW’s authority during the prior negotiations. Although the Board ordered the City to remedy the unilateral change violation, it dismissed the complaint’s separate bad-faith bargaining allegation where no other probative evidence of bad faith had been presented and the City’s unilateral change occurred after negotiations had already broken down. (p. 36.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.08000 – Conduct Outside of Negotiations; Prior UPs

Although per se violations may also serve as indicia of bad faith in support of a surface bargaining allegation, there was no evidence that the City’s unilateral change to the employer paid member contribution, which was unilaterally imposed post-impasse, had contributed to the breakdown in pre-impasse negotiations or had undermined IBEW’s authority during the prior negotiations. Although the Board ordered the City to remedy the unilateral change violation, it dismissed the complaint’s separate bad-faith bargaining allegation where no other probative evidence of bad faith had been presented and the City’s unilateral change occurred after negotiations had already broken down. (p. 36.)