| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General
Although Charging Party requested a resumption of negotiations over health benefit contributions following a declaration of impasse and the exhaustion of applicable impasse resolution procedures, it pointed to no ground rules or similar agreement requiring the parties to negotiate this issue separately from the other subjects in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was legally privileged to refuse to resume bargaining. (p. 12.) Although parties may agree to ground rules governing the time and place of their negotiations, including arrangements to discuss specific subjects separately or in a particular order, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others or make continued negotiations conditional upon reaching agreement over a single subject and thereby refuse to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
900.02000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Declaration/Determination of Impasse
Although Charging Party requested a resumption of negotiations over health benefit contributions following a declaration of impasse and the exhaustion of applicable impasse resolution procedures, it pointed to no ground rules or similar agreement requiring the parties to negotiate this issue separately from the other subjects in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was legally privileged to refuse to resume bargaining. (p. 12.) Although parties may agree to ground rules governing the time and place of their negotiations, including arrangements to discuss specific subjects separately or in a particular order, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others or make continued negotiations conditional upon reaching agreement over a single subject and thereby refuse to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
900.04000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; During Impasse
Although Charging Party requested a resumption of negotiations over health benefit contributions following a declaration of impasse and the exhaustion of applicable impasse resolution procedures, it pointed to no ground rules or similar agreement requiring the parties to negotiate this issue separately from the other subjects in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was legally privileged to refuse to resume bargaining. (p. 12.) Although parties may agree to ground rules governing the time and place of their negotiations, including arrangements to discuss specific subjects separately or in a particular order, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others or make continued negotiations conditional upon reaching agreement over a single subject and thereby refuse to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
900.05000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; Post-Impasse
Although Charging Party requested a resumption of negotiations over health benefit contributions following a declaration of impasse and the exhaustion of applicable impasse resolution procedures, it pointed to no ground rules or similar agreement requiring the parties to negotiate this issue separately from the other subjects in dispute. Under the circumstances, the Respondent was legally privileged to refuse to resume bargaining. (p. 12.) Although parties may agree to ground rules governing the time and place of their negotiations, including arrangements to discuss specific subjects separately or in a particular order, in the absence of such an agreement, a party may not insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others or make continued negotiations conditional upon reaching agreement over a single subject and thereby refuse to discuss other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2524M |
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
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
Union was not bound by its predecessor’s acquiescence in a past practice, and was permitted to demand to bargain over the practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M |
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
In a unilateral change case, a policy may be established by written agreement, written employer rules or regulations, or regular and consistent past practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M |
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
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 change in certification does not relieve the employer of its duty to maintain the status quo until such time as it reaches an agreement with the new union or a lawful impasse occurs. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M |
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
PERB has always recognized newly created, implemented or enforced policy as subject to its unilateral action doctrine. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M |
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Although employer was obligated to meet and confer over its rebidding policy after union demanded to bargain, the employer did not commit a unilateral change by proceeding with a rebid that was consistent with its past practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M |
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
602.04000: 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 Unwritten Past Practice
A change in certification does not relieve the employer of its duty to maintain the status quo, including unwritten past practices, until such time as it reaches an agreement with the new union or a lawful impasse occurs. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M |
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
608.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Past Practice; Maintenance of Status Quo
Although employer was obligated to meet and confer over its rebidding policy after union demanded to bargain, the employer did not commit a unilateral change by proceeding with a rebid that was consistent with its past practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M |
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Charging party abandoned an exception concerning the ALJ’s denial of motion to amend the complaint by subsequently specifying that it was only seeking a determination on certain issues raised by its exceptions. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M |
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
1107.17000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Advisory Opinions
PERB does not issue advisory opinions, but declaratory relief is not an advisory opinion, as it resolves an actual dispute or controversy between parties. Neither the Board’s precedent nor its enabling statutes constrain the Board from providing declaratory relief. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2524M |
Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System
1406.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; MOOTNESS; In General
Unilateral change case was not rendered moot by the charging party’s disclaimer of interest in a bargaining order or restoration of the status quo ante. more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 154 | 03/21/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
750.01000: EMPLOYER ADOPTION/ENFORCEMENT OF UNREASONABLE RULE; In General
City violated the MMBA by processing a unit modification/severance petition on behalf of individual employees when, under the applicable local rules, only employee organizations have standing to petition for unit modification or severance. The record contradicted the City’s claim that it had processed the unit modification/severance petition under the mistaken assumption that the affected employee organization “supported” the efforts of disaffected bargaining unit employees who wished to establish a separate unit for representation purposes. (pp. 4-7.) Among other evidence, a human resources consultant retained by the City, had advised its labor relations officials that the employees’ petition “looked to me like a decertification petition by members” of the exclusive representative. (p. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2525M |
City of Livermore
1100.03000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE; Standing
Lack of standing in unfair practice proceedings is jurisdictional and cannot be waived or otherwise affected by the respondent’s failure to assert that defect or by its mistaken belief as to the identity of persons purportedly acting as the authorized agents of a party with proper standing. (pp. 7-8.) As in civil procedure, lack of standing to bring an unfair practice allegation is a “jurisdictional” defect. Because proper standing to bring an action goes to the very existence of a cause of action and the right to relief, it may be raised at any point in unfair practice proceedings, including for the first time on appeal. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 173 | 05/04/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Where charging party has excepted to one or more factual findings in a proposed decision but has not explained how the purported error(s) would alter the result, the Board may summarily reject the exception. (p. 8.) Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, it need not address arguments that have already been adequately addressed in the same case or that would not affect the result. The Board has routinely declined to address issues raised in exceptions or on appeal, where the party seeking relief has simply reasserted its claims without identifying a specific error of fact, law or procedure to justify reversal. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
Because Charging Party’s exceptions raised no error of fact or law that would alter the dismissal of the complaint, it was unnecessary for the Board to address Charging Party’s exceptions regarding the circumstances in which a back pay award would be appropriate or regarding the appropriate measure of damages. (p. 13.) Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, it need not address arguments that have already been adequately addressed in the same case or that would not affect the result. The Board has routinely declined to address issues raised in exceptions or on appeal, where the party seeking relief has simply reasserted its claims without identifying a specific error of fact, law or procedure to justify reversal. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
1503.02000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number)
Because Charging Party’s exceptions raised no error of fact or law that would alter the dismissal of the complaint, it was unnecessary for the Board to address Charging Party’s exceptions regarding the circumstances in which a back pay award would be appropriate or regarding the appropriate measure of damages. (p. 13.) Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, it need not address arguments that have already been adequately addressed in the same case or that would not affect the result. The Board has routinely declined to address issues raised in exceptions or on appeal, where the party seeking relief has simply reasserted its claims without identifying a specific error of fact, law or procedure to justify reversal. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
Because Charging Party’s exceptions raised no error of fact or law that would alter the dismissal of the complaint, it was unnecessary for the Board to address Charging Party’s exceptions regarding the circumstances in which a back pay award would be appropriate or regarding the appropriate measure of damages. (p. 13.) Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, it need not address arguments that have already been adequately addressed in the same case or that would not affect the result. The Board has routinely declined to address issues raised in exceptions or on appeal, where the party seeking relief has simply reasserted its claims without identifying a specific error of fact, law or procedure to justify reversal. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
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
The Board rejected Charging Party’s exception that, by requesting bargaining over a single issue following impasse, the Charging Party had effectively broken the deadlock and revived the Respondent’s duty to bargain over the single issue, which had already been part of the overall deadlock reached in negotiations for a successor MOU. (pp. 10-11.) The Board found no violation of the duty to bargain because Charging Party’s request for single-issue negotiations did not break the impasse and revive the Respondent’s duty to bargain. Although impasse necessarily entails an overall deadlock in negotiations, it may stem from disagreement over a single subject, if the disagreement is of such importance that the parties’ failure to agree on that one subject causes all negotiations to break down. (pp. 10-11.) The party asserting that an impasse has been broken must point to the changed circumstances that would justify a return to the bargaining table. Mere speculation regarding possible concessions by the other party is insufficient to revive bargaining. There must be substantial evidence that a party is committed to a new bargaining position. Vague and general statements about possible concessions or a request by one party for additional meetings, if unaccompanied by an indication of the areas in which that party foresees future concessions, are insufficient to break an impasse where the other party has clearly announced that its position is final. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
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
The Board rejected Charging Party’s exception that, by requesting bargaining over a single issue following impasse, the Charging Party had effectively broken the deadlock and revived the Respondent’s duty to bargain over the single issue, which had already been part of the overall deadlock reached in negotiations for a successor MOU. (pp. 10-11.) The Board found no violation of the duty to bargain because Charging Party’s request for single-issue negotiations did not break the impasse and revive the Respondent’s duty to bargain. Although impasse necessarily entails an overall deadlock in negotiations, it may stem from disagreement over a single subject, if the disagreement is of such importance that the parties’ failure to agree on that one subject causes all negotiations to break down. (pp. 10-11.) The party asserting that an impasse has been broken must point to the changed circumstances that would justify a return to the bargaining table. Mere speculation regarding possible concessions by the other party is insufficient to revive bargaining. There must be substantial evidence that a party is committed to a new bargaining position. Vague and general statements about possible concessions or a request by one party for additional meetings, if unaccompanied by an indication of the areas in which that party foresees future concessions, are insufficient to break an impasse where the other party has clearly announced that its position is final. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
601.05000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Other
The Board rejected Charging Party’s exception that, by requesting bargaining over a single issue following impasse, the Charging Party had effectively broken the deadlock and revived the Respondent’s duty to bargain over the single issue, which had already been part of the overall deadlock reached in negotiations for a successor MOU. (pp. 10-11.) The Board found no violation of the duty to bargain because Charging Party’s request for single-issue negotiations did not break the impasse and revive the Respondent’s duty to bargain. Although impasse necessarily entails an overall deadlock in negotiations, it may stem from disagreement over a single subject, if the disagreement is of such importance that the parties’ failure to agree on that one subject causes all negotiations to break down. (pp. 10-11.) The party asserting that an impasse has been broken must point to the changed circumstances that would justify a return to the bargaining table. Mere speculation regarding possible concessions by the other party is insufficient to revive bargaining. There must be substantial evidence that a party is committed to a new bargaining position. Vague and general statements about possible concessions or a request by one party for additional meetings, if unaccompanied by an indication of the areas in which that party foresees future concessions, are insufficient to break an impasse where the other party has clearly announced that its position is final. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
The Board rejected Charging Party’s exception that, by requesting bargaining over a single issue following impasse, the Charging Party had effectively broken the deadlock and revived the Respondent’s duty to bargain over the single issue, which had already been part of the overall deadlock reached in negotiations for a successor MOU. (pp. 10-11.) The Board found no violation of the duty to bargain because Charging Party’s request for single-issue negotiations did not break the impasse and revive the Respondent’s duty to bargain. Although impasse necessarily entails an overall deadlock in negotiations, it may stem from disagreement over a single subject, if the disagreement is of such importance that the parties’ failure to agree on that one subject causes all negotiations to break down. (pp. 10-11.) The party asserting that an impasse has been broken must point to the changed circumstances that would justify a return to the bargaining table. Mere speculation regarding possible concessions by the other party is insufficient to revive bargaining. There must be substantial evidence that a party is committed to a new bargaining position. Vague and general statements about possible concessions or a request by one party for additional meetings, if unaccompanied by an indication of the areas in which that party foresees future concessions, are insufficient to break an impasse where the other party has clearly announced that its position is final. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
| 2523C |
El Dorado County Superior Court
900.01000: IMPASSE PROCEDURES; IN GENERAL; DUTY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOOD FAITH; In General
The Board rejected Charging Party’s exception that, by requesting bargaining over a single issue following impasse, the Charging Party had effectively broken the deadlock and revived the Respondent’s duty to bargain over the single issue, which had already been part of the overall deadlock reached in negotiations for a successor MOU. (pp. 10-11.) The Board found no violation of the duty to bargain because Charging Party’s request for single-issue negotiations did not break the impasse and revive the Respondent’s duty to bargain. Although impasse necessarily entails an overall deadlock in negotiations, it may stem from disagreement over a single subject, if the disagreement is of such importance that the parties’ failure to agree on that one subject causes all negotiations to break down. (pp. 10-11.) The party asserting that an impasse has been broken must point to the changed circumstances that would justify a return to the bargaining table. Mere speculation regarding possible concessions by the other party is insufficient to revive bargaining. There must be substantial evidence that a party is committed to a new bargaining position. Vague and general statements about possible concessions or a request by one party for additional meetings, if unaccompanied by an indication of the areas in which that party foresees future concessions, are insufficient to break an impasse where the other party has clearly announced that its position is final. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. |
41 | 152 | 03/20/17 |
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.
