Keyword Search by Headnotes - California Public Employment Relations Board

Decision	Description	PERC Vol.	PERC Index	Date
2680M	County of Santa Clara 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 A failure or refusal to bargain over effects of a non-negotiable change is no less harmful than a failure to bargain over a negotiable change. In either case, the violation “disrupts and destabilizes employer-employee relations and is inconsistent with the goals of our statutes to improve both employer-employee relations and communications between public employers and their employees.” [Citation] (pp. 12-13.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	86	10/31/19
2680M	County of Santa Clara 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 The duty to bargain extends to the implementation and effects of a decision that has a foreseeable effect on matters within the scope of representation, even where the decision itself is not negotiable. In both contexts—a decision involving a negotiable subject or a negotiable effect of a non-negotiable decision—the employer’s obligations are the same. Thus, an employer must provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the reasonably foreseeable effects of its decision before implementation, just as it would be required to do before making a decision on a mandatory subject of bargaining. (pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	86	10/31/19
2680M	County of Santa Clara 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative Employer was not required to bargain over its decision to staff a particular shift with a non-bargaining unit peace officer because its legitimate concern for employee and public safety outweighed the benefits of bargaining in that instance. (p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	86	10/31/19
2680M	County of Santa Clara 608.06000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Management-Rights Clause; Management Prerogative The Board has adopted the framework from International Association of Firefighters, Local 188, AFL-CIO v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 259, for determining whether a managerial decision is subject to a meet and confer obligation under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. There, the court concluded that a balancing test applies only to employer decisions that directly affect employment, such as eliminating jobs, but also involve “‘a change in the scope and direction of the enterprise’ or, in other words, the employer’s ‘retained freedom to manage its affairs unrelated to employment.’” (pp. 9-10.) With such decisions, bargaining would be required only if the benefit for labor-management relations and the collective bargaining process outweighs the burden placed on the employer. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	86	10/31/19
2680M	County of Santa Clara 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 A union is not required to demand to bargain effects where the employer has failed in its duty to provide notice prior to implementing the change. (p. 12.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	86	10/31/19
2680M	County of Santa Clara 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 Where an exclusive representative becomes aware of an employer’s proposed policy change after implementation of that change, by definition, there has been inadequate notice. (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	86	10/31/19
2680M	County of Santa Clara 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 Electing to staff a particular shift with a non-bargaining unit peace officer instead of a bargaining unit employee had foreseeable effects on wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit employees, specifically diminution in collective strength of the unit and the loss of hours and overtime opportunities. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	86	10/31/19
2680M	County of Santa Clara 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 Although no particular bargaining unit employee was displaced because the County’s facility was newly opened, the County’s action had a generalized effect and continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment inasmuch as the bargaining unit suffered the ongoing loss of work opportunities and collective strength. (p. 8.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	86	10/31/19
2680M	County of Santa Clara 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 demonstrate an unlawful unilateral change, the charging party must show: (1) the employer took action to change policy; (2) the action had a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment; (3) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or opportunity to bargain over the change; and (4) the change in policy concerned a matter within the scope of representation. (pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	86	10/31/19
2663M	County of Orange 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Loss or diminution of opportunity is adverse in a scope of representation analysis even absent any immediate adverse effect on a particular employee. more or view all topics or full text.	44	51	08/23/19
2663M	County of Orange 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated It is analytically unsound to consider public policy outcomes when determining whether a subject is within the scope of representation. more or view all topics or full text.	44	51	08/23/19
2663M	County of Orange 1000.01000: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; In General; Test for Subjects Not Specifically Enumerated Decisions directly defining the employment relationship are mandatory subjects of bargaining and are not subject to Claremont balancing. more or view all topics or full text.	44	51	08/23/19
2663M	County of Orange 1000.02109: SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION; Promotions Changes to promotional procedures and criteria, including qualifications, are typically mandatory subjects of bargaining because they directly define the employment relationship. more or view all topics or full text.	44	51	08/23/19
2702M	City of Sacramento 1407.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; General Principles Although federal judicial and administrative precedent is not binding on PERB, it often provides persuasive guidance in construing California’s public sector labor relations statutes. (p. 9, fn. 13.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 1107.20000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Other Absent good cause, the Board will dismiss as without any merit any initial exceptions filed by a prevailing party unless the Board’s ruling on the exceptions would change the outcome of the proposed decision. (p. 2, fn. 3.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 1107.01000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver Absent good cause, the Board will dismiss as without any merit any initial exceptions filed by a prevailing party unless the Board’s ruling on the exceptions would change the outcome of the proposed decision. (p. 2, fn. 3.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity A history of union insignia display in the workplace without resulting incidents is relevant to determine whether special circumstances exist (p. 11), and a history of allowing non-union related items on hardhats without incident also weighs against finding special circumstances (p. 14.) An employer need not wait until an actual injury occurs before banning union insignia for safety reasons; but to establish safety-based special circumstances to support such a ban, the employer must present concrete evidence that employee safety is foreseeably threatened by displaying the union insignia and that it has acted consistently with its stated concern. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity Contrary to an employer’s stated safety concerns—banning stickers is necessary to prevent damage to employee hardhats—it failed to produce any evidence that the ban was necessary to prevent hardhat damage. Lack of evidence that the employer conducted any regular inspection of the hardhats for damage undermined those concerns. It also allowed employees to affix other items to their hardhats with adhesive materials without any explanation regarding those materials’ effect on the hardhats. (pp. 12-14.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity PERB considers several factors in determining whether special circumstances exist that would justify a restriction on the right to display union insignia: whether the insignia could jeopardize employee safety, disrupt employee discipline (e.g., exacerbate employee dissention or cause distraction from work demanding great concentration), or negatively affect the employer (e.g., damage machinery, products, or a certain image necessarily projected for the public). Also important is the specific context in which the prohibition was enacted or enforced, the locations involved, and the parties’ past practice. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity The employer has the burden of establishing that its policy or rule abrogating employees’ right to display union insignia is justified by special circumstances. This analysis is done through a case-by-case approach that considers the particulars of the employer’s operations; the employer must make a concrete, fact-based evidentiary showing that special circumstances exist. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 409.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; DEFENSES; Business Necessity The right to wear union insignia in the workplace is not unlimited and may be subject to reasonable regulation. However, any restriction on the right to display union insignia and messages in the workplace is presumptively invalid; it is permitted only if special circumstances exist justifying the prohibition. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 401.07000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia A history of union insignia display in the workplace without resulting incidents is relevant to determine whether special circumstances exist (p. 11), and a history of allowing non-union related items on hardhats without incident also weighs against finding special circumstances (p. 14.) An employer need not wait until an actual injury occurs before banning union insignia for safety reasons; but to establish safety-based special circumstances to support such a ban, the employer must present concrete evidence that employee safety is foreseeably threatened by displaying the union insignia and that it has acted consistently with its stated concern. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 401.07000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia Contrary to an employer’s stated safety concerns—banning stickers is necessary to prevent damage to employee hardhats—it failed to produce any evidence that the ban was necessary to prevent hardhat damage. Lack of evidence that the employer conducted any regular inspection of the hardhats for damage undermined those concerns. It also allowed employees to affix other items to their hardhats with adhesive materials without any explanation regarding those materials’ effect on the hardhats. (pp. 12-14.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 401.07000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia PERB considers several factors in determining whether special circumstances exist that would justify a restriction on the right to display union insignia: whether the insignia could jeopardize employee safety, disrupt employee discipline (e.g., exacerbate employee dissention or cause distraction from work demanding great concentration), or negatively affect the employer (e.g., damage machinery, products, or a certain image necessarily projected for the public). Also important is the specific context in which the prohibition was enacted or enforced, the locations involved, and the parties’ past practice. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20
2702M	City of Sacramento 401.07000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Display of Union Insignia The employer has the burden of establishing that its policy or rule abrogating employees’ right to display union insignia is justified by special circumstances. This analysis is done through a case-by-case approach that considers the particulars of the employer’s operations; the employer must make a concrete, fact-based evidentiary showing that special circumstances exist. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text.	44	153	03/25/20