Decision 2745M – County of Sacramento

SA-CE-1060-M

Decision Date: September 18, 2020

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  County excepted to a proposed decision finding that it unilaterally implemented new training and certification requirements. It argued that the ALJ should have applied the test for surface bargaining and, under that theory, it did not violate its duty to bargain in good faith.

Disposition:  PERB found that the ALJ should not have applied a unilateral change theory; nevertheless, the County engaged in unlawful surface bargaining.

View Full Text (PDF)

Decision Headnotes

101.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.01000 – In General

Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation unless the change is imposed by an outside agency or required to comply with an inflexible law or other immutable provision. (pp. 17-18.) Exception did not apply when State law set specific requirements for certain emergency personnel but did not discuss dispatchers at issue. (pp. 18-19.) Exception did not apply where a local agency, although granted authority to establish the policies and procedures at issue, was not an outside agency but a department of the same agency. (pp. 19-20.)

101.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.02000 – Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession

Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation unless the change is imposed by an outside agency or required to comply with an inflexible law or other immutable provision. (pp. 17-18.) Exception did not apply when State law set specific requirements for certain emergency personnel but did not discuss dispatchers at issue. (pp. 18-19.) Exception did not apply where a local agency, although granted authority to establish the policies and procedures at issue, was not an outside agency but a department of the same agency. (pp. 19-20.)

102.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes

Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation unless the change is imposed by an outside agency or required to comply with an inflexible law or other immutable provision. (pp. 17-18.) Exception did not apply when State law set specific requirements for certain emergency personnel but did not discuss dispatchers at issue. (pp. 18-19.) Exception did not apply where a local agency, although granted authority to establish the policies and procedures at issue, was not an outside agency but a department of the same agency. (pp. 19-20.)

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

PERB uses “totality of the conduct” and “totality of the circumstances” interchangeably to describe the standard for assessing bad faith bargaining conduct that is not per se unlawful—conduct PERB frequently characterizes as “surface bargaining.” (p. 9, fn. 8.)

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)

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

PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)

605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.01000 – Outright Refusal to Bargain

Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)

605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.04000 – Conditional Bargaining; Piecemeal or Fragmented Bargaining

Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General

PERB uses “totality of the conduct” and “totality of the circumstances” interchangeably to describe the standard for assessing bad faith bargaining conduct that is not per se unlawful—conduct PERB frequently characterizes as “surface bargaining.” (p. 9, fn. 8.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General

PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General

Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)

No items found

Bargaining in good faith requires a genuine desire to reach an agreement, and the Board thus looks to the entire course of negotiations, at and away from the table, to determine whether the respondent bargained with the requisite intent to reconcile differences and reach agreement. The ultimate inquiry is whether the totality of a respondent’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to frustrate negotiations or avoid agreement. (p. 23.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General

The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.02000 – Inflexible Position

The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.05000 – Dilatory or Evasive Tactics

The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.11000 – Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals

The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.14000 – Boulwarism

The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.15000 – Other

Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.15000 – Other

The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)

606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.18000 – Lack of Sufficient Authority

The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.01000 – In General

Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.07000 – Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession

Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation unless the change is imposed by an outside agency or required to comply with an inflexible law or other immutable provision. (pp. 17-18.) Exception did not apply when State law set specific requirements for certain emergency personnel but did not discuss dispatchers at issue. (pp. 18-19.) Exception did not apply where a local agency, although granted authority to establish the policies and procedures at issue, was not an outside agency but a department of the same agency. (pp. 19-20.)

608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.07000 – Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession

Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)

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

PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)

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

Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)

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

Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02070 – Job Descriptions

Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation. (p. 17.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02074 – Job Specifications

Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation. (p. 17.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02125 – Salaries or Wages

Wages are within the scope of representation. (p. 20.)

1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02145 – Training

Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation. (p. 17.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General

PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General

A complaint alleging surface bargaining typically states that, by the totality of its conduct, including but not limited to the conduct described in the complaint, the respondent failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. In contrast, a complaint alleging a unilateral change—a per se violation—typically states that the respondent changed policy without affording the exclusive representative prior notice or an opportunity to meet and confer over the change or its effects. (p. 12.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General

A proposed decision must address the allegations included in the complaint or justify why those allegations need not be addressed. (p. 16.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.02000 – Issuance of Complaint

PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.02000 – Issuance of Complaint

A complaint alleging surface bargaining typically states that, by the totality of its conduct, including but not limited to the conduct described in the complaint, the respondent failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. In contrast, a complaint alleging a unilateral change—a per se violation—typically states that the respondent changed policy without affording the exclusive representative prior notice or an opportunity to meet and confer over the change or its effects. (p. 12.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.02000 – Issuance of Complaint

A proposed decision must address the allegations included in the complaint or justify why those allegations need not be addressed. (p. 16.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint

PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint

A proposed decision must address the allegations included in the complaint or justify why those allegations need not be addressed. (p. 16.)

1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.04000 – Amendments

PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

PERB may consider an unalleged violation if: (1) the respondent has had adequate notice and opportunity to defend against the unalleged matter; (2) the unalleged conduct is intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint; (3) the matter has been fully litigated; (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue; and (5) the unalleged violation occurred within the same limitations period as those matters alleged in the complaint. (p. 14.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations

The employer did not have sufficient notice to defend against an unalleged unilateral change theory because the union did not raise the theory during PERB’s investigatory or hearing process or in its post-hearing brief. On multiple occasions, the union referred only to allegations that the employer had engaged in surface bargaining. (pp. 15-16.)

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board

When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, the Board reviews the entire record and is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (p. 10.)

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

When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)

1200.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS
1200.02000 – Cessation of Unfair Practices; Mootness; Isolated Practices

When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)

1202.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; FACTORS LIMITING OR TERMINATING LIABILITY
1202.01000 – In General

When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)

1202.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; FACTORS LIMITING OR TERMINATING LIABILITY
1202.02000 – Agreement Between. the Parties

When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)

1203.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; BARGAINING ORDERS; REMEDIES AGAINST EMPLOYERS
1203.01000 – In General

When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)

1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.01000 – In General

When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)

1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.07000 – Restoration of Status Quo

When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)

1402.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER
1402.03000 – By Contract/Zipper Clauses/Management Rights Clauses

Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)