Decision 2582M – City of Davis

Necessary and relevant information includes data relevant to a party’s bargaining positions, such as information to assess an employer’s claims used to justify concessionary proposals.

The fact that information may not exist in precisely the form requested does not relieve the employer of its obligation to provide what responsive information it does have, or to state its reasons for failing to do so.

Presenting package proposals addressing matters within the scope of representation is not a refusal to bargain in good faith.

Under the totality of the circumstances test, the Board looks to the entire course of negotiations, including the parties’ conduct at and away from the table, to determine whether the respondent has bargained in good faith, which our precedents describe as a subjective intent to reconcile differences and reach agreement.

Even if the evidence is insufficient to establish any recognized indicium of bad faith, it may be concluded under the totality of circumstances that the respondent lacked an intent to reach agreement.

Order to make employees whole after employer unlawfully imposed its last, best, and final offer did not preclude employer from later pursuing the same cost-saving objectives in good faith negotiations.

Given that parties’ previous agreement did not contain binding arbitration, employer’s opposition to binding arbitration proposal and its explanation that it “was happy with the way things are” were not necessarily evidence of bad faith.

Where employer explained its position on union’s proposal and union did not raise the issue later in negotiations, no evidence of bad faith was found.

The Board has never held that a party’s failure to explain its position on a non-mandatory subject of bargaining is evidence of bad faith.

Entering into a parity agreement may be evidence of bad faith, but not where the agreement was entered into after impasse was declared.

Because an employer’s desire for parity among its units is not, standing alone, evidence of bad faith, neither is entering into parity agreements.

Totality of the circumstances analysis includes any per se violations that may bear upon the question of the respondent’s state of mind.

Presenting package proposals addressing matters within the scope of representation is not a refusal to bargain or evidence of bad faith.

Events occurring post-impasse may be probative of whether a party engaged in surface bargaining before impasse was reached.

An employer’s refusal to provide information to back up its bargaining claims may be evidence of bad faith bargaining, but where requested information did not exist—in this case, the employer’s “target savings”—the failure to provide the information did not evidence bad faith.

The factfinder’s recommendations are a crucial element in the legislative process structured to bring about peacefully negotiated agreements, and so both parties must consider the recommendations in good faith to determine whether there is a basis for settlement, or for such accommodations, concessions, or compromises that might lead to settlement. However, either party may decide in good faith that the report does not provide a basis for settlement.

Employer’s failure to adopt the factfinding report’s recommendations is not unlawful, and employer’s failure to provide a full explanation in its resolution rejecting the recommendations was not, without more, evidence of a refusal to consider the report in good faith.

Unit composition, including the appropriate placement of classifications, is not a mandatory subject of bargaining.

In regulating the conduct of a hearing, ALJ may exclude immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious evidence.

In regulating the conduct of a hearing, ALJ may exclude immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious evidence.

Where an issue was not identified as a specific exception but inextricably intertwined with other exceptions, the Board would err on the side of considering it.

The Board may decline to consider an exception raising an issue that the party neglected to mention to the ALJ.

The purpose of the unalleged violation test is to ensure that the Board decides a case based on an unalleged theory only when it is clear that the parties have been afforded their due process rights.

The unalleged violation test does not apply when a charging party relies on evidence of bad faith bargaining that was not pleaded in the complaint or the unfair practice charge.

Where an issue was not identified as a specific exception but inextricably intertwined with other exceptions, the Board would err on the side of considering it.

It is appropriate to rely on precedent interpreting similar provisions of other California labor relations statutes.