| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2940H |
Trustees of the California State University (Stanislaus)
604.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Subjects of Information
Investigatory reports relating to hostile work environment claims impacting bargaining unit members are presumptively relevant to union’s representational duties. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 130 | 01/31/25 |
| 2940H |
Trustees of the California State University (Stanislaus)
604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy
Because of the unique statutory scheme governing confidentiality and disclosure of peace officer records, for records covered by Penal Code section 832.7, the request for information process must follow the procedure provided for by the Pitchess statutes, especially Evidence Code section 1043. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 130 | 01/31/25 |
| 2940H |
Trustees of the California State University (Stanislaus)
604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy
A record’s exemption from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) does not render it absolutely privileged under labor relations statute. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 130 | 01/31/25 |
| 2940H |
Trustees of the California State University (Stanislaus)
604.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; Confidentiality; Privacy
Typically, an employer may not flatly refuse to provide information based on privacy concerns. Rather, the parties must meet and confer in good faith to reach an accommodation. Appropriate accommodations for private information include redactions, and arrangements to limit using materials for a given arbitration or negotiation and to prohibit public disclosure. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 130 | 01/31/25 |
| 2940H |
Trustees of the California State University (Stanislaus)
604.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION; In General
An exclusive representative is presumptively entitled to information that is necessary and relevant in discharging its representational duties or exercising its right to represent bargaining unit employees regarding terms and conditions of employment within the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 130 | 01/31/25 |
| A524N |
State of California
1108.02000: UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEDURES; COMPLIANCE; Burden of Proof
State’s use of contractors and subcontractors under the Building a Better Early Care and Education System Act (Childcare Provider Act) did not satisfy its duty to make reasonable efforts to distribute notice of the decision to all providers in the bargaining unit. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 145 | 02/27/25 |
| A524N |
State of California
1108.02000: UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEDURES; COMPLIANCE; Burden of Proof
In determining compliance with a notice posting order, there is a rebuttable presumption that properly addressed mail or e-mail messages were received by the addressee. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 145 | 02/27/25 |
| A524N |
State of California
1108.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEDURES; COMPLIANCE; In General
The method of posting notice of a Board decision may be tailored to the circumstances of the affected bargaining unit. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 145 | 02/27/25 |
| A524N |
State of California
1108.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEDURES; COMPLIANCE; In General
Absent extraordinary circumstances, the parties may not use compliance proceedings to re-litigate any issues already decided and no longer subject to appeal. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 145 | 02/27/25 |
| A524N |
State of California
1108.01000: UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEDURES; COMPLIANCE; In General
It is appropriate to apply caselaw arising under traditional labor relations statutes when interpreting remedial provisions of the Building a Better Early Care and Education System Act (Childcare Provider Act). more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 145 | 02/27/25 |
| 2939E |
Rocklin Unified School District
605.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Other
The District’s parental notification policy violates the California Constitution and multiple state laws, including the SAFETY Act, by singling out transgender and gender nonconforming students for different, adverse treatment that puts them at risk of harm. Thus, compliance with the parental notification policy would require certificated employees to engage in conduct that the State of California has said violates state law. Because “illegal subjects involve matters prohibited by external law or public policy,” they “may not be negotiated or included in a collective bargaining agreement, even if the parties were to agree to do so.” (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 44.) Given that the parental notification policy is illegal, any proposals the District could make regarding implementation would be illegal. Taking such an illegal position is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. (City of San Jose, supra, PERB Decision No. 2341-M, pp. 43-44; Berkeley Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2268, pp. 9-15.) In these unusual circumstances, therefore, even though the District was willing to bargain effects, it premised its offer to bargain on an illegal position that constituted bad faith bargaining. By the same token, RTPA lawfully refused to bargain unless the District first rescinded its illegal policy. In other words, it is impossible to bargain in good faith over the effects of an unlawful policy. For these reasons, we find in the alternative that the District violated its obligation to bargain in good faith over negotiable effects. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 129 | 01/28/25 |
| 2939E |
Rocklin Unified School District
605.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Insistence on Nonmandatory/Illegal Subjects (See also Scope of Representation, Sec 1000)
The District Board’s September 6, 2023 decision to adopt the amendments to AR 5020 and 5145.3 is non-negotiable because those amendments are unlawful under state law. The District’s demand that RTPA bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable decision is similarly unlawful, and we will not order the parties to bargain over the effects of the unlawful decision. Accordingly, the District must rescind its parental notification policy and comply with the additional requirements in PERB’s remedial order. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 129 | 01/28/25 |
| 2939E |
Rocklin Unified School District
1203.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; BARGAINING ORDERS; REMEDIES AGAINST EMPLOYERS; In General
Typically, PERB remedies include directing the respondent to begin or resume bargaining in good faith and to
return to a prior bargaining position. (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, pp. 71-78; City of Palo Alto (2019) PERB Decision No. 2664, pp. 5-10 & fn. 6; City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571 M, pp. 17-18.) Here, the District Board’s September 6, 2023 decision to adopt the amendments to AR 5020 and 5145.3 is non-negotiable because those amendments are unlawful under state law. The District’s demand that RTPA bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable decision is similarly unlawful, and we will not order the parties to bargain over the effects of the unlawful decision. Accordingly, the District must rescind its parental notification policy and comply with the additional requirements in PERB’s remedial order. more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 129 | 01/28/25 |
| 2939E |
Rocklin Unified School District
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
There are three primary means of establishing that an employer changed or deviated from the status quo: (1) a deviation from a written agreement or written policy; (2) a change in established past practice; or (3) a newly created policy or application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (Bellflower Unified School District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 10.) An employer’s duty to bargain over change in policy does not turn on whether policy was contained in a collective bargaining agreement. (See, e.g., Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 13 (Oakland); citing Alameda County Management Employees Assn. v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 325, 345.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 129 | 01/28/25 |
| 2939E |
Rocklin Unified School District
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 unilateral change to a matter within the scope of representation is a per se violation of the respondent’s duty to bargain in good faith. (Stockton Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143, p. 22.) Because a unilateral change has an inherently destabilizing and detrimental effect upon the parties’ bargaining relationship, it is unlawful irrespective of intent. (City of Montebello (2016) PERB Decision No. 2491-M, p. 10; County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 18.) To establish a prima facie case that a respondent employer made an unlawful unilateral change, a charging party union that exclusively represents a bargaining unit must prove: (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. (Bellflower Unified School District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 129 | 01/28/25 |
| 2939E |
Rocklin Unified School District
602.08000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Duty to Bargain Effects
Even when an employer has no obligation to bargain over a particular decision, it nonetheless must provide notice and an opportunity to bargain in good faith over any reasonably foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of representation. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, pp. 11-12.) A failure or refusal to bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable change is equally as harmful as a failure to bargain over a negotiable change, as it disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations by creating an imbalance in the power between management and employee organizations. (County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, pp. 22-24.) In other words, the effects bargaining obligation is not an inferior duty. (The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855, p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 129 | 01/28/25 |
| 2939E |
Rocklin Unified School District
601.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
Generally, a public meeting agenda for the employer’s governing body does not provide sufficient notice unless the employer provides such documentation to a union official in a manner reasonably calculated to draw attention to a specific item and with adequate time for good faith negotiations. (Oakland Unified School District (2023), PERB Decision No. 2875, p. 21; Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1689-H, adopting proposed decision at p. 45; Victor Valley Union High School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 565, pp. 5-6 & fn. 6 (Victor Valley).) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 129 | 01/28/25 |
| 2939E |
Rocklin Unified School District
601.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
If an employer wishes to change terms or conditions of employment for represented employees, it must provide the employees’ union with adequate notice and opportunity to bargain before making its decision, and the employer must then bargain in good faith upon request. (The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855, p. 13.) Even if the decision falls outside the scope of bargaining, the employer must provide adequate notice and opportunity to bargain in good faith over the implementation and effects of that decision, to the extent such implementation and effects are reasonably likely to impact represented employees. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 265 & 276; County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Decision No. 2321-M, pp. 8, 23-24; County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, p. 12.) (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 129 | 01/28/25 |
| 2934E |
San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
1000.02143: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Timing of Salary Payments
Timing of accrual and/or payment is normally a mandatory topic. (See, e.g., Laguna Salada Union School District (1995) PERB Decision No. 1103, pp. 11-13 & fn. 13 [employer must bargain over “how and when” employees are paid].) Proposal regarding holiday accrual and pay requirements involved a mandatory bargaining topic. (pp. 25-26.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 117 | 12/20/24 |
| 2934E |
San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
1000.02058: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Ground Rules for Negotiations
Ground rules are a mandatory subject of bargaining, meaning neither party can refuse to bargain over them. (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, pp. 12-14.) However, bargaining over ground rules is analytically distinct from bargaining over substantive terms, meaning that neither party can lawfully refuse to bargain over substantive terms merely because of a dispute over ground rules, and as a result PERB precedent establishes certain default ground rules that apply absent an agreement to the contrary. (Ibid.) (p. 19, fn. 7.) (pp. 19-20.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 117 | 12/20/24 |
| 2934E |
San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
900.05000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Post-Impasse
If negotiations reach a bona fide impasse and the parties complete any required or agreed-upon post-impasse procedures without the employer committing any unremedied unfair practice during the negotiations or impasse procedures, then the employer can lawfully impose new employment terms or conditions. (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M, p. 60.) But if the employer chooses to avail itself of this right, it must respect certain limits. First, the terms imposed must be reasonably comprehended within the employer’s LBFO, meaning they are not regressive compared to the LBFO and the employer afforded the union a full opportunity to bargain over such terms. (Id. at pp. 59, 62-63.) Moreover, the employer cannot impose terms giving it unfettered discretion over a mandatory topic. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2326, p. 2.) Finally, the terms cannot be ones for which mutual consent is necessary. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 117 | 12/20/24 |
| 2934E |
San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
900.05000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Post-Impasse
A principle of good faith bargaining is that if an employer unilaterally imposes new employment terms and conditions after impasse, it cannot impose terms that require mutual consent. Precedent establishes a non-exhaustive list of terms requiring mutual consent, including: an arbitration clause, durational language akin to that in a contract, a management rights clause or other waiver of the right to bargain, a no-strike clause, or another statutory rights waiver. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, pp. 12-14 (San Ramon); Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2015) PERB Decision No. 2418-M, pp. 21-24 & 35-37 (Fresno).) Notably, certain terms requiring mutual consent involve mandatory bargaining subjects, which means a party is free to demand concessions on such topics as a condition for reaching an overall agreement, but reaching impasse does not privilege the employer to unilaterally impose terms involving these topics. (See, e.g., San Ramon, supra, pp. 13-14 [contract duration is a mandatory subject, but after impasse employer may not impose duration for new employment terms]; Fresno, supra, pp. 35-37 [although no-strike clause is a mandatory subject, after impasse employer may not impose a no-strike clause or other waiver of statutory rights].) In contrast, a proposal to modify a bargaining unit is both permissive (meaning it cannot be a condition for reaching an overall agreement) as well as one requiring mutual consent, absent a PERB unit modification order. (County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, pp. 11-12; Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834, pp. 37-39.) (pp. 17, 20-21.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 117 | 12/20/24 |
| 2934E |
San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General
An impasse resolution procedure continues the bargaining process. (Moreno Valley Unified School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 191, 199 (Moreno Valley).) Where a labor relations statute requires one or more impasse dispute resolution procedures, or where the parties voluntarily agree to such a procedure, both parties must participate in good faith. (Id. at p. 198; County of Santa Clara (2020) PERB Order No. Ad-483-M, pp. 5-6; City of Davis (2012) PERB Decision No. 2271-M, p. 6.) In evaluating a claimed failure or refusal to participate in good faith in impasse resolution procedures, PERB applies the same per se and totality of conduct tests that govern bad faith bargaining claims. (Moreno Valley, supra, 142 Cal.App.3d at pp. 199-200, 206; Temple City Unified School District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1972, p. 12, fn. 12.) (p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 117 | 12/20/24 |
| 2934E |
San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
608.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession
Bargaining parties can agree to more generous terms than those set out in the Education Code, if doing so strengthens the Education Code’s provisions rather than annulling them. (Cerritos Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2819, p. 21; Los Angeles Unified School District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2326, pp. 14-15.) The Education Code sets a floor regarding entitlement to holiday pay, but bargaining over the timing of holiday accrual and payment can strengthen the statutory provisions. Indeed, the Education Code invites more generous accrual terms. (Ed. Code § 45203, 4th par. [clarifying that statutory language on holiday pay shall not be interpreted as barring employer “from providing holiday pay for employees who have not been in paid status on the days specified herein”].) Timing of accrual and/or payment is normally a mandatory topic. (See, e.g., Laguna Salada Union School District (1995) PERB Decision No. 1103, pp. 11-13 & fn. 13 [employer must bargain over “how and when” employees are paid].) The Board harmonized that general principle with its finding that the Education Code includes a default provision for holiday accrual requirements allowing more generous provisions, to find that the employer did not violate EERA in proposing to continue the parties’ longstanding non-traditional practice regarding accrual and payment of holiday pay. Moreover, because the parties’ longstanding agreement was a beneficial pay practice and not a statutory waiver, its terms remained the status quo at the end of the parties’ CBA. (pp. 25-27.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 117 | 12/20/24 |
| 2934E |
San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
608.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession
“Because EERA exists alongside the Education Code, the former gives way to the latter when there is a specific conflict between the statutes.” (Cerritos Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2819, p. 20 (Cerritos); Gov. Code, § 3540 [EERA “shall not supersede other provisions of the Education Code”].) However, “the Education Code’s supersession over EERA is not absolute.” (Cerritos, supra, p. 20.) Rather, as the California Supreme Court first explained in San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, parties may bargain over matters the Education Code regulates, provided that its provisions would not be “replaced, set aside or annulled by the language of the proposed contract clause.” (Id. at p. 864.) In other words, the Education Code does not “fully occupy the field” on any subject, and bargaining is permitted to the extent a proposal “would not supersede the relevant part of the Education Code” and instead “would strengthen it.” (Id. at p. 866.) Thus, the Education Code precludes bargaining only to the extent it “clearly evidences an intent to set an inflexible standard or insure immutable provisions.” (Id. at pp. 864-865.) Notably, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed these principles since first announcing them. (See, e.g., United Teachers of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 504, 515-516; Board of Education v. Round Valley Teachers Assn. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 269, 286.) Accordingly, there is a duty to bargain whenever the Education Code leaves discretion as to terms or conditions of employment, and the parties may agree to “additional employee protections beyond those provided in the Education Code” if they do not circumvent or eviscerate mandatory statutory provisions. (Cerritos, supra, p. 22; San Francisco Unified School District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2040, p. 5, fn. 4.) (pp. 22-23.) more or view all topics or full text. |
49 | 117 | 12/20/24 |
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.
