| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A525H |
Regents of the University of California
1309.01000: REPRESENTATION ISSUES; UNIT DETERMINATION/CRITERIA (SEE ALSO WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE?, SECTION 200); In General/Definition of Appropriate Unit
In resolving a petition for certification, recognition, or unit modification, PERB normally approves a petitioner’s proposed unit if it would constitute an appropriate unit, even if it would not qualify as the most appropriate unit. (Regents of University of California v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 159, 182.) (pp. 8, 19-20.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 152 | 03/17/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
1205.07000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; Restoration of Status Quo
PERB’s standard remedy for an employer’s unlawful unilateral change is a cease-and-desist order, a notice posting, restoration of the status quo ante, appropriate make-whole relief including back pay and benefits with interest, and an order to bargain with the union upon request. (Regents of the University of California (2023) PERB Decision No. 2852-H, p. 21; Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2610-H, pp. 94-96.) The Board found those remedies appropriate here. The Board, however, found that the educational setting warranted a delay in a return to the status quo, both to protect student education and Teacher Apprentices’ training. In Antelope Valley Community College District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2854, as in other cases where an employer fails to fulfill its bargaining duty before altering instructors’ work calendar as part of adjusting the student academic calendar, PERB has delayed its requirement to restore the status quo for an academic year when necessary to prevent unwarranted disruption or interference with student instruction or district operations. (Id. at pp. 6-7; Pasadena Area Community College District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2444, p. 34 [forcing parties to change academic calendar part way through an academic year could disrupt unreasonably plans and schedules of students, faculty, and staff].) Here, however, the Board was also mindful that the Demonstration Teachers continued to bear the burden attendant in losing bargaining unit work and in performing additional job duties. Under those unique circumstances, the Board found it appropriate to require restoration of the status quo by the beginning of the next Lab School academic term following the date when its decision becomes final. (pp. 21-23.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
1000.02159: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Workloads
A union has the right to bargain collectively and propose extra compensation and/or workload offsets for employees who voluntarily agree to take on an extra duty. (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. City of Santa Clara (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1010; but cf. Poway Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 680, pp. 11-15 [school district need not bargain before offering teachers a purely voluntary opportunity to build their skills by attending a training].) (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
1000.02159: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Workloads
Assigning represented employees a material new job duty normally falls within the scope of representation. To prove that a change is material enough to trigger a bargaining obligation, the charging party may, but need not, establish that a new duty increases employees’ workload. (State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2823-S, p. 11 [changes to workload and assignment of new duties often go hand in hand, but it is possible to establish one type of unilateral change without the other]; accord County of Santa Clara (2022) PERB Decision No. 2820, pp. 5-6 & fn. 4.) (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
1000.02147: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Transfer of Work Out of Unit
The Board clarified that the Eureka standard, as an analytic matter, better measures whether a deviation from the status quo is sufficiently material to trigger a bargaining obligation, rather than determining whether a transfer of work is within the scope of representation, as often characterized in prior PERB precedent. This clarification is equivalent to the one PERB made in County of Santa Clara (2022) PERB Decision No. 2820-M, where the Board explained that the “reasonably comprehended” standard for new job duties measures whether a deviation from the status quo is material. (Id. at pp. 6-7.) There, the Board explained that past precedent treating the “reasonably comprehended” standard as defining the scope of representation was an historical artifact. (Id. at p. 7.) As PERB now separately analyzes change to status quo and scope of representation, it makes sense that the Eureka standard, like the “reasonably comprehended” test, will normally be more integral to determining whether the employer materially changed the status quo than to determining whether job duties constitute a mandatory bargaining topic. In sum, Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2820-M explained that while job duties and assignments normally fall within the scope of representation, the “reasonably comprehended” test helps to assess whether adding job duties or assignments constitutes a material change. (Id. at pp. 5-7.) By the same logic, the Eureka standard helps to assess whether an employer materially changed the status quo by subtracting job duties from a bargaining unit. (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
1000.02147: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Transfer of Work Out of Unit
A transfer of a job duty from bargaining unit employees to employees outside the unit is material, and thus bargainable, if the transfer either: (1) causes unit employees to cease performing a duty entirely, when previously unit employees shared the duty with non-unit personnel; or (2) causes non-unit employees to begin performing a duty that only unit employees had previously performed. (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, pp. 38-39, fn. 19; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 16; Desert Sands Unified School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2092, p. 20; Calistoga Joint Unified School District (1989) PERB Decision No. 744, p. 9; Eureka City School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 481, p. 15 (Eureka).) PERB commonly refers to this as the Eureka standard. While precedent sometimes characterizes the Eureka standard as defining whether a decision is within the scope of representation, in fact there is no question that job duties are a mandatory bargaining topic. Thus, as an analytic matter, the Eureka standard truly measures whether a deviation from the status quo is sufficiently material to trigger bargaining. (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
1000.02069: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Job Assignment
For a unilateral change claim premised on a new job duty or assignment, to establish a material deviation from the status quo, the charging party must prove that the new duty or assignment was not “reasonably comprehended” within bargaining unit employees’ prior duties or assignments. (State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2823-S, pp. 10-11 (CCHCS); County of Santa Clara (2022) PERB Decision No. 2820-M, p. 7; Cerritos Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2819, p. 30.) This “reasonably comprehended” standard is an objective test that analyzes what a reasonable employee would comprehend based on all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, past practice, training, and job descriptions. (CCHCS, supra, PERB Decision No. 2823-S, p. 10; County of Santa Clara, supra, citing Rio Hondo Community College District (1982) PERB Decision No. 279, pp. 17-18 [while catchall language in job description does not overcome evidence of contrary past practice, PERB interprets job descriptions in the context of employees’ overall role].) Thus, to apply the “reasonably comprehended” standard, PERB compares past duties or assignments to new duties or assignments, through the eyes of a reasonable employee. (County of Santa Clara, supra, p. 8.) (pp. 10-11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
1000.02069: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Job Assignment
Assigning represented employees a material new job duty normally falls within the scope of representation, meaning an employer normally has a duty to provide notice and offer bargaining before it does so, unless the employer satisfied its bargaining duty in advance by negotiating a contractual waiver that allows it to add new duties during a the term of an MOU, without further bargaining. (County of Santa Clara (2022) PERB Decision No. 2820-M, pp. 5-10 & fn. 7; Cerritos Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2819, p. 30.) (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
1000.02048: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Extra Duties
A union has the right to bargain collectively and propose extra compensation and/or workload offsets for employees who voluntarily agree to take on an extra duty. (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. City of Santa Clara (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1010; but cf. Poway Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 680, pp. 11-15 [school district need not bargain before offering teachers a purely voluntary opportunity to build their skills by attending a training].) (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
602.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Generalized Effect or Continuing Impact
Where there is a transfer of work, the union need not show actual diminution in work opportunities or collective bargaining strength. Longstanding precedent recognizes that the “diminution of unit work by transferring functions weakens the collective strength of employees in the unit and their ability to deal effectively with the employer and can affect the viability of the unit itself.” (Rialto Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 209, pp. 6-7; see also Arcohe Union School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 360, p. 6 [diminution of unit work impacts collective strength of employees in the unit].) (p. 20.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
602.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Generalized Effect or Continuing Impact
A charging party satisfies the element of demonstrating that a policy change has a generalized effect or continuing impact if the challenged decision or action alters a term or condition of employment on a prospective basis or if the respondent asserts a non-existent right to continue or repeat the action in the future. (West Contra Costa Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2881, pp. 15-16.) The permanent nature of the apprenticeship program, and the fact that apprentices stay in the program for two years, easily establishes that mentoring is a working condition with a continuing impact. Moreover, the University’s conduct and arguments show there is a substantial risk it may continue and/or repeat the same or similar conduct. (Regents of the University of California (2023) PERB Decision No. 2852-H, p. 17.) (pp. 14-15, 19.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
602.03000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Change in or Deviation from Written Agreement or Policy
A transfer of a job duty from bargaining unit employees to employees outside the unit is material, and thus bargainable, if the transfer either: (1) causes unit employees to cease performing a duty entirely, when previously unit employees shared the duty with non-unit personnel; or (2) causes non-unit employees to begin performing a duty that only unit employees had previously performed. (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, pp. 38-39, fn. 19; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 16; Desert Sands Unified School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2092, p. 20; Calistoga Joint Unified School District (1989) PERB Decision No. 744, p. 9; Eureka City School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 481, p. 15 (Eureka).) PERB commonly refers to this as the Eureka standard. While precedent sometimes characterizes the Eureka standard as defining whether a decision is within the scope of representation, in fact there is no question that job duties are a mandatory bargaining topic. Thus, as an analytic matter, the Eureka standard truly measures whether a deviation from the status quo is sufficiently material to trigger bargaining. (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
602.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Adequate Prior Notice and Opportunity to Bargain
Because the University’s unilateral change was a fait accompli by the time the union learned of it, the union had no duty to demand bargaining. (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 20.) (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
The Board clarified that the Eureka standard, as an analytic matter, better measures whether a deviation from the status quo is sufficiently material to trigger a bargaining obligation, rather than determining whether a transfer of work is within the scope of representation, as often characterized in prior PERB precedent. This clarification is equivalent to the one PERB made in County of Santa Clara (2022) PERB Decision No. 2820-M, where the Board explained that the “reasonably comprehended” standard for new job duties measures whether a deviation from the status quo is material. (Id. at pp. 6-7.) There, the Board explained that past precedent treating the “reasonably comprehended” standard as defining the scope of representation was an historical artifact. (Id. at p. 7.) As PERB now separately analyzes change to status quo and scope of representation, it makes sense that the Eureka standard, like the “reasonably comprehended” test, will normally be more integral to determining whether the employer materially changed the status quo than to determining whether job duties constitute a mandatory bargaining topic. In sum, Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2820-M explained that while job duties and assignments normally fall within the scope of representation, the “reasonably comprehended” test helps to assess whether adding job duties or assignments constitutes a material change. (Id. at pp. 5-7.) By the same logic, the Eureka standard helps to assess whether an employer materially changed the status quo by subtracting job duties from a bargaining unit. (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
A transfer of a job duty from bargaining unit employees to employees outside the unit is material, and thus bargainable, if the transfer either: (1) causes unit employees to cease performing a duty entirely, when previously unit employees shared the duty with non-unit personnel; or (2) causes non-unit employees to begin performing a duty that only unit employees had previously performed. (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, pp. 38-39, fn. 19; City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 16; Desert Sands Unified School District (2010) PERB Decision No. 2092, p. 20; Calistoga Joint Unified School District (1989) PERB Decision No. 744, p. 9; Eureka City School District (1985) PERB Decision No. 481, p. 15 (Eureka).) PERB commonly refers to this as the Eureka standard. While precedent sometimes characterizes the Eureka standard as defining whether a decision is within the scope of representation, in fact there is no question that job duties are a mandatory bargaining topic. Thus, as an analytic matter, the Eureka standard truly measures whether a deviation from the status quo is sufficiently material to trigger bargaining. (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
To establish a prima facie case that a respondent employer violated its bargaining duty via a unilateral change, a charging party union that exclusively represents a bargaining unit must prove that (1) the employer changed or deviated from the status quo; (2) the change or deviation concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change or deviation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’ terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without first providing adequate advance notice of the proposed change to the union and bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (Regents of the University of California (2023) PERB Decision No. 2884-H, p. 9.) Absent a valid defense, an employer’s unilateral change affecting negotiable matters is a per se refusal to meet and confer. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2942H |
Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
601.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); When Duty Arises/Sufficiency of Bargaining Demand
Because the University’s unilateral change was a fait accompli by the time the union learned of it, the union had no duty to demand bargaining. (County of Merced (2020) PERB Decision No. 2740-M, p. 20.) (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 137 | 02/10/25 |
| 2958M |
* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
The City waived its argument that its civil service rules carved-out attorney discipline from binding interest arbitration by not raising it before the ALJ. (Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C, p. 12 [noting well-established rule that the Board will not normally review a matter never raised before the ALJ].) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 174 | 04/25/25 |
| 2958M |
* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
1000.02029: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Disciplinary Action
Disciplinary procedures and criteria and other job protection proposals are within the scope of representation. (Healdsburg Union High School District and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 375, p. 69.) This includes proposals that require employers to show cause for imposing discipline. (Id. at pp. 69-70; accord Cerritos Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2819, pp. 27-29; City of Davis (2016) PERB Decision No. 2494-M, pp. 28-30; Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2262, p. 12.) Indeed, investigatory and disciplinary procedures “lie at the core of traditional labor relations” and are “particularly amenable to collective bargaining.” (County of Sonoma (2023) PERB Decision No. 2772a-M, p. 24.) (pp. 26, 30.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 174 | 04/25/25 |
| 2958M |
* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
760.01000: EMPLOYER VIOLATION OF LOCAL RULE; In General
San Francisco Charter section 10.104 states that certain City employees, including attorneys, “shall be exempt from competitive civil service selection, appointment and removal procedures,” and that “the person serving in the position shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.” This provision exempts attorneys from the civil service merit system. However, job protection proposals are fully bargainable and eligible for interest arbitration under the City Charter. Serving “at the pleasure” of management has no single, uniform meaning, as it leaves open what protections management may adopt relative to the positions in question. Thus, while employees serving at the pleasure of management normally have no property interest giving rise to constitutional due process, they are fully able to avail themselves of job protections that may be in place by MOU or by any other lawful policy. (Bishop v. Wood (1976) 426 U.S. 341, 345 [employee who “held his position at the will and pleasure” of a local agency had “no right to continued employment,” but employee’s removal was conditioned on compliance with procedures set out in the local agency’s procedures]; Mervin v. Federal Trade Commission (D.C. Cir. 1978) 591 F.2d 821, 828-830 [government attorney who “served at the pleasure of his superiors,” had “no property right to continued employment cognizable under the due process clause,” but had the right to pursue administrative remedies to enforce protections afforded under an administrative manual and a regulation regarding layoff order.]; accord Bogacki v. Bd. of Supervisors (1971) 5 Cal.3d 771, 775-777 [employees who served “at the pleasure of their department heads” were, nonetheless, afforded certain dismissal appeal procedures].) The title of section 10.104 (“Exclusions from Civil Service Employment”) confirms that its purpose is to exclude employees from civil service merit protections rather than to specify what alternate job protections may result from bargaining and interest arbitration, or from policy determinations for unrepresented employees. (pp. 26-29.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 174 | 04/25/25 |
| 2958M |
* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
760.01000: EMPLOYER VIOLATION OF LOCAL RULE; In General
When interpreting the San Francisco Charter to discern whether it exempts a proposal from interest arbitration, the “primary guide” is the Charter’s “plain meaning.” (San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 38 Cal.4th 653, 671.) The City’s argument that attorneys’ job protection proposals were not amenable to interest arbitration is at odds with the Charter’s language. San Francisco Charter section A8.409-4, which provides for interest arbitration, is a local agency rule on resolution of bargaining disputes. Charter section A8.409-4 includes narrow exceptions which show that the Charter drafters were fully aware how to remove matters from interest arbitration, and in fact did so for a limited set of disciplinary matters—those related to police officers, deputy sheriffs, and firefighters---but there is no exclusion for attorney discipline. (pp. 15, 18.) The plain language of a second provision, Charter section A8.409-3, declares the City must “bargain in good faith on all matters within the scope of representation as defined by [MMBA] section 3504, relating to the wages, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions of [City] employment, including . . . agreements to provide binding arbitration of discipline and discharge.” (Emphasis supplied.) The carve-out from section A8.409-3 for employees and certain matters that fall under the civil service merit system does not exclude the explicitly included topic of “binding arbitration of discipline and discharge.” Thus, even if attorneys fell within the merit system, which they do not, the City could not argue that there was a carve-out for the attorneys’ job protection proposals. Moreover, the carve-out provides that the civil service commission (CSC) is the bargaining entity for those matters falling under the carve-out, and the City never referred the union’s job protection proposals to the CSC or suggested that the union do so. Rather, the City’s negotiators bargained over the job protection proposals, further confirming that such proposals do not fall within the CSC carve-out. (pp. 19-23.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 174 | 04/25/25 |
| 2958M |
* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
760.01000: EMPLOYER VIOLATION OF LOCAL RULE; In General
Under the MMBA, a local agency may adopt reasonable rules and regulations about resolution of collective bargaining disputes. (Gov. Code, § 3507(a)(5).) MMBA section 3509(b) makes it unlawful to violate a reasonable local rule adopted under section 3507, and section 3509(b) further provides that PERB shall process any such claim as an unfair practice charge. This means that a party must normally use PERB’s unfair practice process to challenge any alleged violation of a local rule adopted under section 3507. (City and County of San Francisco v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39 (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 938, 944 (CCSF v. Operating Engineers).) A party seeking to enforce a local rule cannot eschew filing an unfair practice charge in favor of filing a lawsuit in superior court. (Id. at pp. 944-950.) Thus, in CCSF v. Operating Engineers, when the City filed a petition to compel arbitration against a union for refusing to engage in interest arbitration and thereby allegedly violating Charter section A8.409-4, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. (Ibid.) This was true even though the City’s petition did not frame its claim as an unfair practice and did not mention the MMBA. (Id. at p. 945 [PERB’s exclusive jurisdiction derives from the conduct at issue rather than how a party chooses to describe or challenge such conduct].) (pp. 15-16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 174 | 04/25/25 |
| 2958M |
* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
750.01000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
Precedent requires PERB to harmonize the San Francisco City Charter with the MMBA if possible. (Building Material & Construction Teamsters’ Union v. Farrell (1986) 41 Cal.3d 651, 665 [noting important goal of harmonizing the San Francisco City Charter with the MMBA, if possible].) (p. 29.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 174 | 04/25/25 |
| 2958M |
* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
608.15000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Hard Bargaining
The City engaged in bad faith bargaining when it repeatedly and preemptively stated that union’s job protection proposals would be ineligible for interest arbitration. These statements were misrepresentations and amounted to an unsupportable and unilaterally announced ground rule that frustrated negotiations by artificially separating job protection proposals from all the other issues under discussion. (Cf. County of Ventura (2021) PERB Decision No. 2758-M, pp. 36-37 [county’s material misrepresentation evidenced bad faith bargaining]; City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 40 [employer may not unilaterally establish ground rules]; City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, pp. 19-20 [insistence on fragmented or “piecemeal” bargaining evidences bad faith because it arbitrarily limits the range of possible compromises].) In these circumstances, PERB rejected the City’s claim that it engaged in lawful hard bargaining and instead concluded that the City bargained in bad faith in violation of MMBA section 3506.5(c). (Consolidated Irrigation District (2024) PERB Decision No. 2905-M, p. 28 [“hard bargaining” defense fails if the totality of the circumstances shows that respondent’s bargaining conduct manifested bad faith].) (p. 32.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 174 | 04/25/25 |
| 2958M |
* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
606.19000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Concealment/Misrepresentation
The City engaged in bad faith bargaining when it repeatedly and preemptively stated that union’s job protection proposals would be ineligible for interest arbitration. These statements were misrepresentations and amounted to an unsupportable and unilaterally announced ground rule that frustrated negotiations by artificially separating job protection proposals from all the other issues under discussion. (Cf. County of Ventura (2021) PERB Decision No. 2758-M, pp. 36-37 [county’s material misrepresentation evidenced bad faith bargaining]; City of Arcadia (2019) PERB Decision No. 2648-M, p. 40 [employer may not unilaterally establish ground rules]; City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, pp. 19-20 [insistence on fragmented or “piecemeal” bargaining evidences bad faith because it arbitrarily limits the range of possible compromises].) In these circumstances, PERB rejected the City’s claim that it engaged in lawful hard bargaining and instead concluded that the City bargained in bad faith in violation of MMBA section 3506.5(c). (Consolidated Irrigation District (2024) PERB Decision No. 2905-M, p. 28 [“hard bargaining” defense fails if the totality of the circumstances shows that respondent’s bargaining conduct manifested bad faith].) (p. 32.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 174 | 04/25/25 |
ePERB Portal Status: Operational
The ePERB Portal services have been restored. Thank you for your patience.
Notice Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) at PERB
For information about use of AI in PERB filings, see Atwater Elementary Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Garcia) (2025) PERB Decision No. 2995-E and our FAQ.
