| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
606.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Explain Proposal
Evidence that an employer exchanged numerous proposals and explained the rationale behind its proposals demonstrated its good faith during successor MOU negotiations. (pp. 42-44.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
606.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES; Failure to Explain Proposal
A blanket refusal to bargain is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, including when an employer fails to provide the union with any rationale for rejecting its proposal. (pp. 42-43.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.04000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Conditional Bargaining
The regional committee committed an unfair practice by designating a trial court as its bargaining representative when doing so precluded the employee organization from negotiating over a subject within the scope of representation: wages. (p. 37.) A party cannot unilaterally determine that the existence of alternative negotiable benefits eliminates its obligation to at least consider in good faith other proposals within the scope of representation. Nor may a party insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and thereby refuse to discuss the other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (pp. 36-37.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
The employer’s expressed concern that a union’s specific proposal violates the law did not signal an outright refusal to bargain where the evidence shows the employer continued to negotiate over the issue in general. (p. 44.) The employer’s unlawful position that regional bargaining was not required did not evidence bad faith in the parties’ successor MOU negotiations because the employer’s stated position pertained to discussions about the parties’ “current” contract and its response to the union’s notification of anticipated litigation. (p. 45.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
A blanket refusal to bargain is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, including when an employer fails to provide the union with any rationale for rejecting its proposal. (pp. 42-43.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
An outright refusal to bargain over matters within the scope of representation is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. (p. 37.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
The regional committee committed an unfair practice by designating a trial court as its bargaining representative when doing so precluded the employee organization from negotiating over a subject within the scope of representation: wages. (p. 37.) A party cannot unilaterally determine that the existence of alternative negotiable benefits eliminates its obligation to at least consider in good faith other proposals within the scope of representation. Nor may a party insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and thereby refuse to discuss the other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (pp. 36-37.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
605.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS; Outright Refusal to Bargain
A specific delegation of bargaining responsibility may be unlawful if it is found to be inconsistent with the obligation to bargain in good faith. (p. 35.) Although regional committees generally may delegate their bargaining authority under the Court Interpreter Act, requiring a union to individually negotiate the impacts of changes by local trial courts to retirement benefits on a court-by-court basis violates the Act’s purpose because the trial courts lack the statutory authority to change interpreters’ wages. (pp. 35-36.) A regional committee is thus required to meet and confer over the impacts of a trial court’s change to employee pension contributions, and it may not delegate that obligation to the trial court. (p. 36.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
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 unilateral change in an established past practice may constitute unlawful action. A binding past practice is one which is unequivocal, clearly enunciated and acted upon, and readily ascertainable over a reasonable period of time as a fixed and established practice accepted by both parties, or which is regular and consistent or historic and accepted. (p. 55.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
608.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES; Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession
The parties’ practical construction of a contract, as shown by their actions, is important evidence of their intent. (p. 40.) However, based on a non-waiver clause in the parties’ MOU, the union did not waive its contractual right to meet and confer with the regional committee over the impact of future changes to employee pension contributions simply by doing so previously with one of the trial courts. The Board further declined to consider evidence of the union’s conduct as it related to other regional committees. (pp. 40-41, fn. 31.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.07000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); Time of Implementation
Individual courts unilaterally implemented employee pension contribution changes while their Regional Committee and the exclusive representative were negotiating over the effects of those changes. The courts could not implement the changes until the negotiations resulted in an agreement or a good faith impasse unless the implementation date was based on an immutable deadline or an important managerial interest, such that a delay in implementation beyond the date chosen would effectively undermine the employer’s right to make the nonnegotiable decision. (pp. 48-49.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
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
Even if an employer’s decision is nonnegotiable, it must meet and confer over any foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of representation. Once the employer makes a firm decision, it must provide the exclusive representative notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. Upon receiving notice of the proposed change, the exclusive representative must make a valid request to bargain any foreseeable effects of the change on negotiable matters. Generally, an employer may not implement the nonnegotiable decision until the parties have reached agreement or impasse over the negotiable effects of the decision. (p. 47.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
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
Court employers failed to meet with exclusive representative before issuing written grievance responses, which summarily rejected the grievances on the basis that there had been no MOU violation. In doing so, the courts unilaterally changed policy by repudiating collectively-bargained grievance procedures. (pp. 52-55.) The failure to properly process a single grievance has a generalized effect or continuing impact on bargaining unit members’ terms and conditions of employment if the action is based upon the employer’s belief that it had a contractual right to take the action without negotiating with the union. (p. 54.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
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
Grievance procedures are within the scope of representation and an employer’s failure or refusal to process a grievance in accordance with collectively-bargained grievance procedures may be reviewed as a unilateral change. (p. 50.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
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
Employer’s offer to meet and confer with the exclusive representative over the elimination of a stipend after notifying the representative that it would stop making the payments does not ameliorate its unilateral change in past practice. When the exclusive representative first learns of a negotiable change after the decision has been made, by definition, there has been inadequate notice. (p. 56.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
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 an employer’s decision is nonnegotiable, it must meet and confer over any foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of representation. Once the employer makes a firm decision, it must provide the exclusive representative notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. Upon receiving notice of the proposed change, the exclusive representative must make a valid request to bargain any foreseeable effects of the change on negotiable matters. Generally, an employer may not implement the nonnegotiable decision until the parties have reached agreement or impasse over the negotiable effects of the decision. (p. 47.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Employer’s offer to meet and confer with the exclusive representative over the elimination of a stipend after notifying the representative that it would stop making the payments does not ameliorate its unilateral change in past practice. When the exclusive representative first learns of a negotiable change after the decision has been made, by definition, there has been inadequate notice. (p. 56.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Court employers failed to meet with exclusive representative before issuing written grievance responses, which summarily rejected the grievances on the basis that there had been no MOU violation. In doing so, the courts unilaterally changed policy by repudiating collectively-bargained grievance procedures. (pp. 52-55.) The failure to properly process a single grievance has a generalized effect or continuing impact on bargaining unit members’ terms and conditions of employment if the action is based upon the employer’s belief that it had a contractual right to take the action without negotiating with the union. (p. 54.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Even if an employer’s decision is nonnegotiable, it must meet and confer over any foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of representation. Once the employer makes a firm decision, it must provide the exclusive representative notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. Upon receiving notice of the proposed change, the exclusive representative must make a valid request to bargain any foreseeable effects of the change on negotiable matters. Generally, an employer may not implement the nonnegotiable decision until the parties have reached agreement or impasse over the negotiable effects of the decision. (p. 47.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
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 state a prima facie case for a unilateral change, the charging party must establish that: (1) the employer took action to change policy, (2) the change in policy concerns a matter within the scope of representation, (3) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or opportunity to bargain over the change, and (4) the action had a generalized effect or continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment. (pp. 46-47.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
602.01000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION); In General
Even when an employer has no obligation to bargain over a particular decision, it must meet and confer over any foreseeable effects of the decision on matters within the scope of representation. (p. 32.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
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 an employer’s decision is nonnegotiable, it must meet and confer over any foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of representation. Once the employer makes a firm decision, it must provide the exclusive representative notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to taking action that affects matters within the scope of representation. Upon receiving notice of the proposed change, the exclusive representative must make a valid request to bargain any foreseeable effects of the change on negotiable matters. Generally, an employer may not implement the nonnegotiable decision until the parties have reached agreement or impasse over the negotiable effects of the decision. (p. 47.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
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 must meet and confer over any foreseeable effects of the decision on matters within the scope of representation. (p. 32.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201)
The regional committee committed an unfair practice by designating a trial court as its bargaining representative when doing so precluded the employee organization from negotiating over a subject within the scope of representation: wages. (p. 37.) A party cannot unilaterally determine that the existence of alternative negotiable benefits eliminates its obligation to at least consider in good faith other proposals within the scope of representation. Nor may a party insist on separating one negotiable subject from all others and thereby refuse to discuss the other subjects that may form the basis of a possible compromise. (pp. 36-37.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
| 2701I |
Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee
601.02000: EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000); Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201)
A specific delegation of bargaining responsibility may be unlawful if it is found to be inconsistent with the obligation to bargain in good faith. (p. 35.) Although regional committees generally may delegate their bargaining authority under the Court Interpreter Act, requiring a union to individually negotiate the impacts of changes by local trial courts to retirement benefits on a court-by-court basis violates the Act’s purpose because the trial courts lack the statutory authority to change interpreters’ wages. (pp. 35-36.) A regional committee is thus required to meet and confer over the impacts of a trial court’s change to employee pension contributions, and it may not delegate that obligation to the trial court. (p. 36.) more or view all topics or full text. |
44 | 150 | 03/16/20 |
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.
