AFSCME granted complaint against City of San Jose: PERB says City bargained in bad-faith in 2011
January 6, 2014 by Andrew Baker
In a major victory for American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 101, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) on December 6 reversed dismissal of the Union’s charge of “piece meal bargaining” by the City of San Jose during 2011 negotiations constituted bad-faith bargaining. The PERB General Counsel will now issue complaint and set the case for hearing. Beeson, Tayer and Bodine (BT&B) maintains an active public sector law practice and provides a summary of facts below.
PERB’s 51-page decision should be of interest to all public sector unions looking for legal guidance, for it addresses many bargaining issues commonly faced in negotiations.
Most significantly, the Board ruled that an employer’s insistence that discussion of a mandatory subject of bargaining – for example, retirement benefits – be the subject of a contract reopener, and thus deferred until agreement was reached on all other subjects, constitutes unlawful “piece meal” bargaining which is both an indicator of bad-faith, surface bargaining and a “per se” violation by itself.
The Board also decided to issue a complaint on the Union’s allegation that the City’s truncated bargaining, which included a refusal to consider Union counterproposals and a declaration of impasse after only two proposal exchanges, constituted an unlawful “rush to impasse.”
And the Board clarified that a proposal to eliminate vested employee benefits – in this case, vested sick-leave benefits – constitutes an unlawful proposal on an illegal bargaining subject.
You may find this decision where attorney Andrew Baker of BT&B law firm appeared as the attorney for AFSCME , PERB Decision No. 2341-M, on the PERB website, www.perb.ca.gov. Please join us at BT&B’s blog for more summary findings and court cases involving labor law and employment rights.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
