Decision 2603M – City of Yuba City

SA-CE-919-M

Decision Date: December 12, 2018

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 90

Decision Headnotes

501.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case

If an employer has engaged in conduct that is facially or inherently discriminatory, i.e., discrimination in its simplest form, the employer’s unlawful motive can be inferred without specific evidence. The employer bears the burden of justifying such conduct by coming forward with a legitimate business justification. On the other hand, if the employer’s conduct is not facially or inherently discriminatory, the charging party must prove the employer’s unlawful motive under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210.

501.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case

No prima facie case of inherently discriminatory conduct where the employees were treated less favorably than those in other bargaining units because their exclusive representative rejected the more favorable proposals accepted by other units.

501.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION
501.02000 – Burden of Proof; Evidence

If an employer has engaged in conduct that is facially or inherently discriminatory, i.e., discrimination in its simplest form, the employer’s unlawful motive can be inferred without specific evidence. The employer bears the burden of justifying such conduct by coming forward with a legitimate business justification. On the other hand, if the employer’s conduct is not facially or inherently discriminatory, the charging party must prove the employer’s unlawful motive under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.03000 – Departure from Past Practices or Procedures

Inconsistency of employer’s action with its previously stated goals is not evidence of unlawful motive when the inconsistency was introduced before the protected activity.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.12000 – Employer Statements or Conduct; Threats

Statement that employer intended to provide a one-time bonus to all units that negotiated a contract did not evidence intent to discriminate against unit that engaged in protected activity, where there was no indication that the unit that engaged in protected activity could not have obtained the bonus had it reached an agreement.

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.13000 – Parity Agreements

While the Board has recognized that an employer has a legitimate interest in maintaining parity or equity across its bargaining units, it has never held that parity is required. To the contrary, an employer comes perilously close to bad faith when it insists that it will not under any circumstances agree to different terms for different employee groups.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.05000 – Post-Impasse

No violation of MMBA section 3505.7’s requirement of holding a “public hearing regarding the impasse” before imposing LBFO where the employer provided adequate notice to the public that it intends to consider imposing terms and conditions on employees, and to allow public comment concerning the proposed imposition.

900.00000 – IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH
900.05000 – Post-Impasse

Even if the employer complies with the MMBA’s requirement of holding a public hearing regarding the impasse, the manner in which the hearing proceeds, statements made by the employer’s representatives and governing body during the hearing, and the decision ultimately imposed may be evidence of whether the employer has acted with the requisite good faith during negotiations and impasse procedures.