City of Richmond * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M (PERB 1720M)

OVERRULED IN PART by County of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2315-M
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 188,
Charging Party,
V.
CITY OF RICHMOND,
Respondent.
Case No. SF-CE-157-M
PERB Decision Nci. 1720-M
December 13, 2004
Appearances: Davis & Reno by Duane W. Reno, Attorney, for International Association of
Firefighters, Local 188; Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai by Charles Sakai, Attorney, for City
of Richmond.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
NEIMA, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on appeal by the International Association of Firefighters, Local 188 (Local 188)
from a Board agent's partial dismissal of its unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the
City of Richmond (City) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)1 by refusing to
provide information, failing to meet and confer over the decision and/or effects of a layoff and
by violating a local rule.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter, including the original and
amended unfair practice charge, the warning and dismissal letter, Local 188's appeal and the
City's response. The Board finds the warning and dismissal letters to be free of prejudicial
error and adopts them as the decision of the Board itself, subject to the discussion below.
1MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500, et seq.

DISCUSSION
Negotiability of Layoff Decision
The primary issue in this matter is whether a decision to layoff employees is within the
scope of representation under the MMBA. The Board holds that it is not. Local 188 argues
that Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608 [116 Cal.Rptr. 507] (Vallejo),
holds to the contrary. In Vallejo, the California Supreme Court addressed whether a personnel
reduction proposal was within the scope of representation under the MMBA. Local 188 cites
to the portion of the decision which states:
On the other hand, because of the nature of fire fighting, a
reduction of personnel may affect the fire fighters' working
conditions by increasing their workload and endangering their
safety in the same way that general manning provisions affect
workload and safety. To the extent, therefore, that the decision to
lay off some employees affects the workload and safety of the
remaining workers, it is subject to bargaining and arbitration for
the same reasons indicated in the prior discussion of the manning
proposal. 	[Vallejo at p. 622.]
As Local 188 interprets the above-quoted language, Vallejo makes negotiable any layoff
decision affecting workload or safety. This Board disagrees.
In citing to Vallejo, Local 188 ignores the immediately preceding paragraphs of the
decision in which the Court finds that:
A reduction of the entire fire fighting force based on the city's
decision that as a matter of policy of fire prevention the force was
too large would not be arbitrable in that it is an issue involving
the organization of the service.
Thus cases under the NLRA indicate that an employer has the
right unilaterally to decide that a layoff is necessary, although it
must bargain about such matters as the timing of layoffs and the
number and identity of the employees affected.
(Id. at p. 621; emphasis in original.)
2

Thus, by its plain language, Vallejo supports the Board's holding that a decision to layoff
employees is not within the scope of representation under the MMBA. The portion cited by
Local 188 merely holds that the effects of a layoff decision, for example, workload and safety
issues, are negotiable. Such an interpretation is consistent with long-standing PERB precedent
addressing the negotiability of layoff decisions. In Newman-Crows Landing Unified School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 223 (Newman-Crows), the Board recognized that although:
The layoff of employees unquestionably impacts on their wages,
hours, and other conditions of employment. It may concurrently
impact upon those employees who remain. Nevertheless, the
determination that there is insufficient work to justify the existing
number of employees or sufficient funds to support the work
force, is a matter of fundamental managerial concern which
requires that such decisions be left to the employer's prerogative.
In the 22 years since Newman-Crows, the Board has not waivered from this position. The
Board finds nothing in Vallejo or the text of the MMBA requiring a departure from this well-
established rule.2
Negotiability of Layoff Effects
Although the decision to layoff employees is not within the scope of representation, the
effects of the layoff are within scope. (Newman-Crows.) Neither party disputes this rule. The
issue here is whether Local 188 requested to bargain over the effects of the layoff decision.
Under Newman-Crows, a demand to bargain over a non-negotiable decision will not be
interpreted as also a demand to negotiate over the effects of the decision. (Id.) Further, any
demand to bargain over effects must also clearly identify the negotiable areas of impact. (Id.)
Where the union requests only to bargain over the non-negotiable decision, and gives no notice
2Having found that a decision to layoff employees is not within the scope of
representation under the MMBA, it is not necessary to address whether Local 188 waived its
right to negotiate in the collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the portion of the
warning and dismissal letter discussing waiver is not adopted by the Board.
3

of its desire to negotiate over effects, PERB has held that the union has waived its right to
bargain over effects. (Id.)
Here, Local 188 asserts that it requested to bargain over the effects of the City's
decision to layoff unit members. However, neither the charge nor amended charge supports
such a contention. It is undisputed that Local 188 repeatedly requested to bargain over the
decision itself. However, as discussed above, such a request is not sufficient to constitute a
request to bargain over effects. (Id.)
Local 188 also contends that it requested information from the City about the impact of
the layoffs on workload and safety. Local 188 argues that its request for information should
have been interpreted as a request to bargain over such effects. Under Newman-Crows,
however, such a request falls short of placing the City on notice that Local 188 was making a
demand to bargain.
ORDER
The partial dismissal in Case No. SF-CE-157-M is hereby AFFIRMED.
Chairman Duncan and Member Whitehead joined in this Decision.
4