Decision 2609I – San Francisco County Superior Court and Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee

SF-CO-1-I

Decision Date: December 18, 2018

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 43
Perc Index: 99

Decision Headnotes

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

The unilateral change test is equally applicable to unilateral repudiations by an employer or by an employee organization.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.03000 – Contract Repudiation or Breach

No unilateral change found where the respondent’s conduct was consistent with a reading of the entire contract article in question.

804.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT
804.01000 – In General

The unilateral change test is equally applicable to unilateral repudiations by an employer or by an employee organization.

804.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT
804.02000 – Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000)

The unilateral change test is equally applicable to unilateral repudiations by an employer or by an employee organization.

804.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT
804.02000 – Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000)

No unilateral change found where the union’s conduct was consistent with a reading of the entire contract article on sympathy strikes.

804.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT
804.03000 – Strike as Unlawful Pressure Tactic

Employer failed to meet burden of proving that union called a sympathy strike that would imminently and substantially threaten the public health or safety within the meaning of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. Los Angeles County Employees Association, Local 660 (1985) 38 Cal.3d 564. Employer’s witnesses did not establish that absence of the represented employees prevented work from being performed, nor that temporary replacements were unavailable.

1402.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER
1402.02000 – Union’s Waiver of Employee or Organizational Rights

Where language in no strike clause is susceptible to more than one interpretation, burden is on charging party employer to provide extrinsic evidence manifesting “clear mutual intent” as to the employer’s preferred interpretation.

1404.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION
1404.01000 – In General

When required, PERB interprets collective bargaining agreements according to their plain meaning if the language is clear. If the language is ambiguous, the Board may consider extrinsic evidence, such as bargaining history, where available. The Board also attempts to harmonize contract provisions to give meaning to each provision.

1404.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION
1404.02000 – Board’s Jurisdiction To Interpret Contracts

Although PERB lacks authority to enforce contracts, it may interpret contracts when necessary to resolve an alleged unfair practice.

1404.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION
1404.03000 – General Principles of Contract Interpretation

When required, PERB interprets collective bargaining agreements according to their plain meaning if the language is clear. If the language is ambiguous, the Board may consider extrinsic evidence, such as bargaining history, where available. The Board also attempts to harmonize contract provisions to give meaning to each provision.)