Decision 2594M – County of Orange

LA-CE-934-M, LA-CE-935-M, LA-CE-944-M

Decision Date: November 6, 2018

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 73

Decision Headnotes

750.00000 – EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE
750.01000 – In General

Because the meet-and-confer process is itself a procedure for resolving disputes regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, a rule that regulates the process is subject to MMBA section 3507.

1200.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS
1200.01000 – In General

Where an ordinance was adopted without meeting and conferring with three exclusive representatives, the Board declared the negotiable provisions of the ordinance void and unenforceable, and ordered the employer to cease and desist enforcing those provisions, as to those exclusive representatives, but not as to exclusive representatives that did not participate in the case.

1200.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS
1200.01000 – In General

To be severable, an invalid provision must be grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable from the remaining provision.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02058 – Ground Rules for Negotiations

Rules requiring public disclosure of proposals and counter-proposals made during negotiations are negotiable because they may inhibit the free flow of discussions and prohibit the parties from agreeing to conduct negotiations confidentially.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02058 – Ground Rules for Negotiations

A rule requiring an updated economic analysis during negotiations may be negotiable if the employer interprets the rule to require pausing negotiations while the economic analysis is updated.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02058 – Ground Rules for Negotiations

A rule proscribing a 30-day period in which negotiations may not take place is negotiable because it affects the bilateral negotiations process. In the absence of a statutory prescription, the parties must determine bilaterally whether negotiations should be placed on hold while the public has an opportunity to comment on initial proposals, and if so, for how long.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02058 – Ground Rules for Negotiations

A rule requiring an economic analysis of current compensation and benefits received by the bargaining unit, and of possible opening proposals by the employer, is not negotiable because it does not have any direct impact on procedures for negotiations. An employer is entitled to deliberate privately and fully develop a proposal affecting negotiable subjects before presenting it to the employees’ representative.

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02058 – Ground Rules for Negotiations

Ground rules are equivalent to a mandatory subject of bargaining. Provisions of an ordinance that directly regulate the bargaining relationship are within the scope of representation, though some fundamental matters are reserved to the parties and excluded from negotiations.

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

The three-step balancing test from Claremont Police Officers Association v. City of Claremont (2006) 39 Cal.4th 623 applies “to determine whether management must meet and confer with a recognized employee organization . . . when the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision significantly and adversely affects a bargaining unit’s wages, hours, or working conditions.” It does not apply, however, to managerial decisions that directly define the employment relationship, which are always negotiable.

1208.00000 – DECLARATORY RELIEF
1208.01000 – In General

Where an ordinance was adopted without meeting and conferring with three exclusive representatives, the Board declared the negotiable provisions of the ordinance void and unenforceable, and ordered the employer to cease and desist enforcing those provisions, as to those exclusive representatives, but not as to exclusive representatives that did not participate in the case.