Decision 2680M – County of Santa Clara

To demonstrate an unlawful unilateral change, the charging party must show: (1) the employer took action to change policy; (2) the action had a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment; (3) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or opportunity to bargain over the change; and (4) the change in policy concerned a matter within the scope of representation. (pp. 7-8.)

Although no particular bargaining unit employee was displaced because the County’s facility was newly opened, the County’s action had a generalized effect and continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment inasmuch as the bargaining unit suffered the ongoing loss of work opportunities and collective strength. (p. 8.)

Electing to staff a particular shift with a non-bargaining unit peace officer instead of a bargaining unit employee had foreseeable effects on wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit employees, specifically diminution in collective strength of the unit and the loss of hours and overtime opportunities. (p. 13.)

Where an exclusive representative becomes aware of an employer’s proposed policy change after implementation of that change, by definition, there has been inadequate notice. (pp. 8-9.)

A union is not required to demand to bargain effects where the employer has failed in its duty to provide notice prior to implementing the change. (p. 12.)

The Board has adopted the framework from International Association of Firefighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, for determining whether a managerial decision is subject to a meet and confer obligation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. There, the court concluded that a balancing test applies only to employer decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but also involve “‘a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise’ or, in other words, the employer’s ‘retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment.’” (pp. 9-10.) With such decisions, bargaining would be required only if the benefit for labor-management relations and the collective bargaining process outweighs the burden placed on the employer. (p. 10.)

Employer was not required to bargain over its decision to staff a particular shift with a non-bargaining unit peace officer because its legitimate concern for employee and public safety outweighed the benefits of bargaining in that instance. (p. 11.)

The duty to bargain extends to the implementation and effects of a decision that has a foreseeable effect on matters within the scope of representation, even where the decision itself is not negotiable. In both contexts—a decision involving a negotiable subject or a negotiable effect of a non-negotiable decision—the employer’s obligations are the same. Thus, an employer must provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before implementation, just as it would be required to do before making a decision on a mandatory subject of bargaining. (pp. 11-12.)

A failure or refusal to bargain over effects of a non-negotiable change is no less harmful than a failure to bargain over a negotiable change. In either case, the violation “disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations and is inconsistent with the goals of our statutes to improve both employer-employee relations and communications between public employers and their employees.” [Citation] (pp. 12-13.)

Because decision bargaining and effects bargaining promote the same purpose, the harm that flows from a violation of the duty to bargain either is equally odious. Chief among these harms are disrupting a union’s ability to effectively represent its members and tipping the balance of power between management and employee organizations. (p. 13.)

While the employer was entitled to unilaterally decide to staff a particular shift with a non-bargaining unit peace officer rather than a bargaining unit employee, it was required to provide the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before it implemented the change. (p. 13.)