Home | Decisions | Keyword Search by Headnotes

Keyword Search by Headnotes

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
606.16000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Seek Clarification of Proposal
To conform PERB precedent to the court’s holding in Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90, that “an employer may satisfy its duty to seek clarification either ‘at the bargaining table’—that is, by formally meeting and conferring—or through an informal exchange between parties” (id. at p. 114), PERB clarified any contrary suggestions found in the following decisions: Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313, p. 12; City of Palo Alto (2017) PERB Decision No. 2388a-M, p. 34; and County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 27. The Board noted, however, that City of Palo Alto, supra, PERB Decision No. 2388a-M remains correct in holding that an employer cannot comply with its duty merely via comments at a public meeting of the employer’s governing board. (Id. at p. 34.) (p. 27 & fn. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
606.16000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Seek Clarification of Proposal
When an employer, having reached a decision that falls outside the scope of bargaining, believes in good faith that its decision has no reasonably foreseeable effects on terms and conditions of employment, “before refusing to negotiate, [the] employer must attempt to clarify through discussions with the union any uncertainty as to what is proposed for bargaining and whether it falls within the scope of representation.” (Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90. 112 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted].) Indeed, “[r]efusing an effects bargaining demand without first attempting to clarify ambiguities and[/]or whether matters proposed for bargaining fall within the scope of representation, violates the duty to bargain in good faith.” (Ibid. [citations and internal quotation marks omitted].) (pp. 26-28 & fn. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
Faculty union established the right to bargain over reasonably foreseeable health and safety effects of a student vaccination policy. Faculty union therefore has the option to demand such negotiations. (pp. 19 & 28.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
To conform PERB precedent to the court’s holding in Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90, that “an employer may satisfy its duty to seek clarification either ‘at the bargaining table’—that is, by formally meeting and conferring—or through an informal exchange between parties” (id. at p. 114), PERB clarified any contrary suggestions found in the following decisions: Rio Hondo Community College District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2313, p. 12; City of Palo Alto (2017) PERB Decision No. 2388a-M, p. 34; and County of Orange (2018) PERB Decision No. 2594-M, p. 27. The Board noted, however, that City of Palo Alto, supra, PERB Decision No. 2388a-M remains correct in holding that an employer cannot comply with its duty merely via comments at a public meeting of the employer’s governing board. (Id. at p. 34.) (p. 27 & fn. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
When an employer, having reached a decision that falls outside the scope of bargaining, believes in good faith that its decision has no reasonably foreseeable effects on terms and conditions of employment, “before refusing to negotiate, [the] employer must attempt to clarify through discussions with the union any uncertainty as to what is proposed for bargaining and whether it falls within the scope of representation.” (Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90, 112 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted].) Indeed, “[r]efusing an effects bargaining demand without first attempting to clarify ambiguities and[/]or whether matters proposed for bargaining fall within the scope of representation, violates the duty to bargain in good faith.” (Ibid. [citations and internal quotation marks omitted].) The court clarified that “an employer may satisfy its duty to seek clarification either ‘at the bargaining table’—that is, by formally meeting and conferring—or through an informal exchange between parties.” (Id. at p. 114 [emphasis in original].) Just as an employer acts at its peril if it mistakenly refuses to bargain over a bargainable decision (or bargainable effects), a union acts at its peril if, as here: (1) an employer’s decision falls outside the scope of representation but has bargainable effects; (2) the employer, acting on a good faith doubt as to whether there are bargainable effects, seeks a clarification meeting; and (3) the union refuses to meet because it believes the employer has already commenced implementation, but the union ultimately fails to prove the employer had in fact done so. (pp. 26-28 & fn. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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 if a union gains actual notice of an employer’s non-bargainable decision, and the employer has not yet begun to implement its decision as of the date the union obtains such notice, the employer must still comply with its pre-implementation duty to bargain over any reasonably foreseeable effects on terms and conditions of employment. Normally, this means bargaining in good faith to impasse or agreement before beginning implementation. (County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Decision No. 2799-M, p. 25 [“An employer normally may not implement the decision while effects bargaining continues and instead must wait until the parties have reached agreement or impasse over the negotiable effects of the decision”].) (pp. 25-26.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
Irrespective of whether an employer provides formal notice or relies on actual notice, such notice is only adequate (sometimes referred to as “sufficient” or “reasonable”) if: (1) the person receiving formal notice or obtaining actual notice is a union official with authority to act on behalf of the organization on the matter in question; (2) the union official recognizes, or reasonably should recognize, the change in or potential impact on a bargainable topic; and (3) there remains sufficient time for the union to consult with bargaining unit members, formulate a plan of action, draft information requests and receive responses, craft counterarguments and/or proposals, and bargain in good faith to impact or agreement before the employer reaches a firm decision (for bargainable decisions) or begins implementation (for decisions outside the scope of representation that have bargainable effects). Thus, the amount of notice that is sufficient will necessarily depend on the circumstances of each case, and parties would do well to err on the side of caution rather than assuming that only a particular amount of time is all that the law requires. (pp. 23-24.) Although insufficient notice is an element of the prima facie case, and therefore part of the charging party’s burden for proving a unilateral change allegation, where the facts demonstrate, or the employer admits, that no formal notice was provided to the representative, the burden is the employer’s to prove its affirmative defense of waiver, and not the union’s to prove lack of notice as part of its prima facie case. However, if the employer establishes that the union obtained actual notice, the union has the burden of proof as to the temporal sufficiency or insufficiency of such actual notice. (pp. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
California State University claimed that it could address all relevant effects and implementation issues of relaxed student immunization policy as part of accommodating individual faculty members with disabilities. In reviewing this matter, the appellate court rejected this argument, noting that “laws prohibiting discrimination do not preclude enforcement of the right to be free from discrimination through the collective bargaining process.” (Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90, 106 [collecting cases].) (p. 19.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
Decisions with reasonably foreseeable impacts on employee health or safety are a quintessential example of decisions that trigger an obligation to engage in effects bargaining. (International Assn. of Fire Fighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, 276-277; Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System (2012) PERB Decision No. 2298-M, p. 19.) Indeed, “where human health and safety are involved,” we should err on the side of finding a change is material enough to trigger bargaining even if it “will affect only a few employees.” (Solano County Employees’ Assn. v. County of Solano (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 256, 262 (Solano).) Notably, Solano held this is true even when management seeks to make the workplace safer, over the union’s objection. (Ibid.) (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
“If a proposal is outside the scope of representation and does not have negotiable effects, the employer may refuse to negotiate without committing an unfair practice. (City of Pinole (2012) PERB Dec. No. 2288-M, p. 7.) However, a party’s refusal to discuss a proposal based on an incorrect belief that the proposal concerns a matter outside of the scope of representation is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. (County of San Luis Obispo (2015) PERB Dec. No. 2427-M, p. 26.)” (Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90, 104.) (pp. 13-14.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
Even if a union gains actual notice of an employer’s non-bargainable decision, and the employer has not yet begun to implement its decision as of the date the union obtains such notice, the employer must still comply with its pre-implementation duty to bargain over any reasonably foreseeable effects on terms and conditions of employment. Normally, this means bargaining in good faith to impasse or agreement before beginning implementation. (County of Santa Clara (2021) PERB Decision No. 2799-M, p. 25 [“An employer normally may not implement the decision while effects bargaining continues and instead must wait until the parties have reached agreement or impasse over the negotiable effects of the decision”].) (pp. 25-26.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
Although insufficient notice is an element of the prima facie case, and therefore part of the charging party’s burden for proving a unilateral change allegation, where the facts demonstrate, or the employer admits, that no formal notice was provided to the representative, the burden is the employer’s to prove its affirmative defense of waiver, and not the union’s to prove lack of notice as part of its prima facie case. However, if the employer establishes that the union obtained actual notice, the union has the burden of proof as to the temporal sufficiency or insufficiency of such actual notice. (pp. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
Irrespective of whether an employer provides formal notice or relies on actual notice, such notice is only adequate (sometimes referred to as “sufficient” or “reasonable”) if: (1) the person receiving formal notice or obtaining actual notice is a union official with authority to act on behalf of the organization on the matter in question; (2) the union official recognizes, or reasonably should recognize, the change in or potential impact on a bargainable topic; and (3) there remains sufficient time for the union to consult with bargaining unit members, formulate a plan of action, draft information requests and receive responses, craft counterarguments and/or proposals, and bargain in good faith to impact or agreement before the employer reaches a firm decision (for bargainable decisions) or begins implementation (for decisions outside the scope of representation that have bargainable effects). Thus, the amount of notice that is sufficient will necessarily depend on the circumstances of each case, and parties would do well to err on the side of caution rather than assuming that only a particular amount of time is all that the law requires. (pp. 23-24.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
2915Ha Trustees of the California State University
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
For employer decisions falling within the scope of representation (sometimes called the “scope of bargaining”), a union need not demand to bargain if it first learns of the decision as a fait accompli. The same principle applies to a non-bargainable decision with bargainable effects, if the employer has begun implementation as of the date the union first learns of the decision. (pp. 21 & 23.) more or view all topics or full text.		 50 148 04/10/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
1205.01000: REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS; In General
To cure chilling effect of employer’s extreme and unfounded allegations against employees engaged in protected activity, Board may supplement its standard notice posting by ordering a live notice reading and written apology. (pp. 53-54.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
505.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; In General
Where employees’ protected activity is the only basis for adverse actions, the employer cannot prove that it would have taken the same actions in the absence of the employees’ protected activity. (Mount San Jacinto Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2605, p. 20; State of California (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2282-S, p. 4.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
409.08000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Special Circumstances
An employer must prove special circumstances to justify restrictions on protected recording activity. (pp. 31-32.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
Employer’s broad and onerous policies requiring 10-day advance registration, advance approval, an employer “guarantor,” and further conditions on use was unlawful as applied to outdoors union tabling event. (p. 47.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
PERB has upheld employer rules requiring union representatives to identify themselves upon arrival, as long as those rules are not applied to employee organizations differently from other visitors. (Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1700-H, adopting proposed decision at p. 53; Long Beach Unified School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 130, p. 15 (Long Beach).) Such rules are reasonable because they protect the employer’s legitimate interest in monitoring visitors. (Long Beach, supra, pp. 15-16.) However, rules requiring advance notice of unscheduled visits by union representatives, whose availability is “sporadic and unpredictable,” are unreasonable. (Regents of the University of California, supra, adopting proposed decision at p. 71.) (p. 36.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
401.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; In General; Prima Facie Case.
HEERA section 3568 provides that “[s]ubject to reasonable regulations, employee organizations shall have the right of access at reasonable times to areas in which employees work, the right to use institutional bulletin boards, mailboxes and other means of communication, and the right to use institutional facilities at reasonable times for the purpose of meetings concerned with the exercise of the rights guaranteed by [HEERA].” An employer must allow an exclusive representative reasonable access to employer property to communicate with bargaining unit employees, distribute literature, investigate workplace conditions, and assess contractual and statutory compliance. (County of San Joaquin (2021) PERB Decision No. 2775-M, pp. 26-39.) An employer bears the burden of proving that a restriction on access to its premises is: (1) necessary to safe or efficient operations; and (2) narrowly drawn to avoid overbroad, unnecessary interference with protected rights. (Id. at pp. 26-27; County of Riverside (2012) PERB Decision No. 2233-M, pp. 7-8, 13.) These principles apply irrespective of whether the person seeking access is a bargaining unit member or a union representative who does not work for the employer. (County of San Joaquin, supra, p. 27.) (p. 35.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
300.17000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Other
Making lawful video recordings in furtherance of protected activity is also protected activity. An employer must prove special circumstances to justify restrictions on protected recording activity. (pp. 26-27, 31-32.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
300.15000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Speech
Making lawful video recordings in furtherance of protected activity is also protected activity. An employer must prove special circumstances to justify restrictions on protected recording activity. (pp. 26-27, 31-32.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
300.15000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Speech
Although labor and employment disputes may engender ill feelings and strong responses, the law encourages “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate,” to overcome these disputes. (Carpinteria Unified School District (2021) PERB Decision No. 2797, pp. 13-14 (Carpinteria), citing City of Oakland (2014) PERB Decision No. 2387-M, p. 23.) Thus, employees’ right to engage in concerted activity permits some leeway for impulsive or intemperate behavior. (Carpinteria, supra, pp. 13-14.) Protected speech may lose its status as such only if the employer meets its burden to prove the speech was “maliciously dishonest or so insubordinate or flagrant as to create a substantial disruption or the serious risk thereof.” (SunLine Transit Agency (2024) PERB Decision No. 2928-M, p. 18, citing San Jacinto, supra, PERB Decision No. 2865, pp. 21-22.) Where the employer claims that speech was so flagrant or insubordinate as to disrupt operations, PERB conducts a fact-intensive inquiry that considers all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of what occurred; and (4) the extent to which the speech or conduct at issue can fairly be said to have been provoked by the employer. (Carpinteria, supra, p. 14.) (p. 25.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
300.15000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Speech
Protected expressive activity may include employee delegations on employer property to express dissatisfaction with working conditions. (Regents of the University of California (2018) PERB Decision No. 2601-H, pp. 17-18.) (p. 25.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26
3003H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
300.15000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Speech
An employee is typically protected in criticizing working conditions, management, or union leadership, if the criticism relates to advancing employee interests or is a logical extension of group activity. (p. 24.) more or view all topics or full text.		 02/09/26