County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, p. 10.

Summary

County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, p. 10.

Text

Home
|
Decisions
|
2745M
Decision 2745M – County of Sacramento
SA-CE-1060-M
Decision Date: September 18, 2020
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description:
County excepted to a proposed decision finding that it unilaterally implemented new training and certification requirements. It argued that the ALJ should have applied the test for surface bargaining and, under that theory, it did not violate its duty to bargain in good faith.
Disposition:
PERB found that the ALJ should not have applied a unilateral change theory; nevertheless, the County engaged in unlawful surface bargaining.
View Full Text (PDF)
Perc Vol: 45
Perc Index: 39
Decision Headnotes
101.00000 – PERB:  OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.01000 – In General
Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation unless the change is imposed by an outside agency or required to comply with an inflexible law or other immutable provision. (pp. 17-18.) Exception did not apply when State law set specific requirements for certain emergency personnel but did not discuss dispatchers at issue. (pp. 18-19.) Exception did not apply where a local agency, although granted authority to establish the policies and procedures at issue, was not an outside agency but a department of the same agency. (pp. 19-20.)
101.00000 – PERB:  OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.02000 – Conflicts Between PERB-Administered Laws and Other California Statutes; Education Code/Supersession; MMBA Supersession
Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation unless the change is imposed by an outside agency or required to comply with an inflexible law or other immutable provision. (pp. 17-18.) Exception did not apply when State law set specific requirements for certain emergency personnel but did not discuss dispatchers at issue. (pp. 18-19.) Exception did not apply where a local agency, although granted authority to establish the policies and procedures at issue, was not an outside agency but a department of the same agency. (pp. 19-20.)
102.00000 – PERB:  OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; SCOPE OF PERB JURISDICTION
102.02000 – Concurrent or Conflicting Jurisdiction with Other Agencies or Courts; Interpretation or Enforcement of Other Statutes
Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation unless the change is imposed by an outside agency or required to comply with an inflexible law or other immutable provision. (pp. 17-18.) Exception did not apply when State law set specific requirements for certain emergency personnel but did not discuss dispatchers at issue. (pp. 18-19.) Exception did not apply where a local agency, although granted authority to establish the policies and procedures at issue, was not an outside agency but a department of the same agency. (pp. 19-20.)
601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
PERB uses “totality of the conduct” and “totality of the circumstances” interchangeably to describe the standard for assessing bad faith bargaining conduct that is not per se unlawful—conduct PERB frequently characterizes as “surface bargaining.” (p. 9, fn. 8.)
601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)
602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.01000 – In General
PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)
605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.01000 – Outright Refusal to Bargain
Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)
605.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; OTHER PER SE VIOLATIONS
605.04000 – Conditional Bargaining; Piecemeal or Fragmented Bargaining
Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General
PERB uses “totality of the conduct” and “totality of the circumstances” interchangeably to describe the standard for assessing bad faith bargaining conduct that is not per se unlawful—conduct PERB frequently characterizes as “surface bargaining.” (p. 9, fn. 8.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General
PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General
Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)
No items found
Bargaining in good faith requires a genuine desire to reach an agreement, and the Board thus looks to the entire course of negotiations, at and away from the table, to determine whether the respondent bargained with the requisite intent to reconcile differences and reach agreement. The ultimate inquiry is whether the totality of a respondent’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to frustrate negotiations or avoid agreement. (p. 23.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.01000 – In General
The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.02000 – Inflexible Position
The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.05000 – Dilatory or Evasive Tactics
The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.11000 – Failure to Provide Counter-Proposals
The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.14000 – Boulwarism
The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.15000 – Other
Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.15000 – Other
The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)
606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
606.18000 – Lack of Sufficient Authority
The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representation (e.g., wage increases tied to certification changes) or present counterproposals; and (3) terminated negotiations after two bargaining sessions without explanation in favor of unilaterally implementing the requirement before reaching a bona fide impasse. (pp. 24-26.)
608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.01000 – In General
Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)
608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.07000 – Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession
Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation unless the change is imposed by an outside agency or required to comply with an inflexible law or other immutable provision. (pp. 17-18.) Exception did not apply when State law set specific requirements for certain emergency personnel but did not discuss dispatchers at issue. (pp. 18-19.) Exception did not apply where a local agency, although granted authority to establish the policies and procedures at issue, was not an outside agency but a department of the same agency. (pp. 19-20.)
608.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; DEFENSES
608.07000 – Waiver by Union; Contract Waivers; Bargaining History Estoppel; Disclaimer; Supersession
Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)
804.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT
804.01000 – In General
PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)
804.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT
804.01000 – In General
Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)
804.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT
804.02000 – Refusal to Bargain in Good Faith (See, also, Scope of Representation, Sec. 1000)
Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)
1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02070 – Job Descriptions
Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation. (p. 17.)
1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02074 – Job Specifications
Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation. (p. 17.)
1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02125 – Salaries or Wages
Wages are within the scope of representation. (p. 20.)
1000.00000 – SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
1000.02145 – Training
Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation. (p. 17.)
1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General
PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)
1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General
A complaint alleging surface bargaining typically states that, by the totality of its conduct, including but not limited to the conduct described in the complaint, the respondent failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. In contrast, a complaint alleging a unilateral change—a per se violation—typically states that the respondent changed policy without affording the exclusive representative prior notice or an opportunity to meet and confer over the change or its effects. (p. 12.)
1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.01000 – In General
A proposed decision must address the allegations included in the complaint or justify why those allegations need not be addressed. (p. 16.)
1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.02000 – Issuance of Complaint
PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)
1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.02000 – Issuance of Complaint
A complaint alleging surface bargaining typically states that, by the totality of its conduct, including but not limited to the conduct described in the complaint, the respondent failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. In contrast, a complaint alleging a unilateral change—a per se violation—typically states that the respondent changed policy without affording the exclusive representative prior notice or an opportunity to meet and confer over the change or its effects. (p. 12.)
1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.02000 – Issuance of Complaint
A proposed decision must address the allegations included in the complaint or justify why those allegations need not be addressed. (p. 16.)
1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint
PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)
1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.03000 – Variance of Complaint from Charge; Evidence, Findings, or Order Varying from Complaint; Events Subsequent to Charge or Complaint
A proposed decision must address the allegations included in the complaint or justify why those allegations need not be addressed. (p. 16.)
1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT
1103.04000 – Amendments
PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)
1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations
PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate unfair practices in the complaint. (pp. 11-12.) The omission of one theory does not foreclose its later consideration if the charging party: (1) moves to amend the complaint to add the independent allegation, or (2) satisfies the unalleged violation doctrine. (p. 13.)
1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations
PERB may consider an unalleged violation if: (1) the respondent has had adequate notice and opportunity to defend against the unalleged matter; (2) the unalleged conduct is intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint; (3) the matter has been fully litigated; (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue; and (5) the unalleged violation occurred within the same limitations period as those matters alleged in the complaint. (p. 14.)
1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations
The employer did not have sufficient notice to defend against an unalleged unilateral change theory because the union did not raise the theory during PERB’s investigatory or hearing process or in its post-hearing brief. On multiple occasions, the union referred only to allegations that the employer had engaged in surface bargaining. (pp. 15-16.)
1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.06000 – De Novo Review; Standard of Review by Board
When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, the Board reviews the entire record and is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (p. 10.)
1200.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS
1200.01000 – In General
When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)
1200.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS
1200.02000 – Cessation of Unfair Practices; Mootness; Isolated Practices
When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)
1202.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; FACTORS LIMITING OR TERMINATING LIABILITY
1202.01000 – In General
When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)
1202.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; FACTORS LIMITING OR TERMINATING LIABILITY
1202.02000 – Agreement Between. the Parties
When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)
1203.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; BARGAINING ORDERS; REMEDIES AGAINST EMPLOYERS
1203.01000 – In General
When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)
1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.01000 – In General
When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)
1205.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR PRACTICES; MISCELLANEOUS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
1205.07000 – Restoration of Status Quo
When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s operations, it has allowed the charging party an opportunity to decline all or part of that relief and stayed rescission orders for a period of time to allow the parties an opportunity to bargain over alternative remedies. (pp. 27-28.)
1402.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; WAIVER
1402.03000 – By Contract/Zipper Clauses/Management Rights Clauses
Zipper clause generally permits both parties to refuse to bargain changes in matters covered by the terms of the clause during the life of their bargaining agreement. (p. 21.) But one cannot propose new terms and conditions of employment and simultaneously use the zipper clause as a shield to prevent the introduction of integrally related counterproposals, which amounts to unlawful piecemeal bargaining. (pp. 21-22.)

Retrieval chunks

• #1

  Home | Decisions | 2745M Decision 2745M – County of Sacramento SA-CE-1060-M Decision Date: September 18, 2020 Decision Type: PERB Decision Description: County excepted to a proposed decision finding that it unilaterally implemented new training and certification requirements. It argued that the ALJ should ha…

• #2

  Changes to job specifications, including training and certification requirements, are within the scope of representation unless the change is imposed by an outside agency or required to comply with an inflexible law or other immutable provision. (pp. 17-18.) Exception did not apply when State law set specific requirem…

• #3

  PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate…

• #4

  PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate…

• #5

  606.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; NEGOTIATIONS; INDICIA OF SURFACE OR BAD FAITH BARGAINING; TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES 606.02000 – Inflexible Position The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new …

• #6

  The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representa…

• #7

  The totality of the County’s conduct indicates it engaged in surface bargaining: (1) exhibited a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when claiming a new certification requirement was not negotiable even though it was not an immutable standard; (2) refused to bargain with the union over subjects within the scope of representa…

• #8

  804.00000 – UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES; UNION BARGAINING CONDUCT 804.01000 – In General PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargai…

• #9

  1103.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT 1103.01000 – In General PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theo…

• #10

  A complaint alleging surface bargaining typically states that, by the totality of its conduct, including but not limited to the conduct described in the complaint, the respondent failed and refused to meet and confer in good faith. In contrast, a complaint alleging a unilateral change—a per se violation—typically stat…

• #11

  PERB uses a “per se” or “totality of conduct” test to determine whether a respondent violated its obligation to meet and confer in good faith. Although the same conduct may give rise to violations under both per se and surface bargaining theories, they are necessarily different theories and must be alleged as separate…

• #12

  When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, the Board applies a de novo standard of review. Under this standard, the Board reviews the entire record and is free to make different factual findings and reach different legal conclusions than those in the proposed decision. (p. 10.) 1200.00000 – REMEDIES FOR UNFAIR…

• #13

  When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s opera…

• #14

  When an employer has implemented terms and conditions of employment without reaching a bond fide impasse, PERB typically orders an employer to restore the status quo and rescind the implemented changes. However, where rescission may be contrary to the bargaining unit’s best interest or may disrupt the employer’s opera…