City of San Ramon (PERB 2571M)

2 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOY MENT RELATIONS BOARD

SERVICE EMPLOY EES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1021,
Charging Party, Case No. SF-CE-855-M
v. PERB Decision No. 2571-M
CITY OF SAN RAMON, June 20, 2018
Respondent.

Appearances: Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld, by Kenanne R. Steele, Attomey, for Service
Employees Intemational Union Local 1021; Liebert, Cassidy, Whitmore, by Anjin Kachalia,
Attomey, for City of San Ramon.
Before Banks, Winslow, and Krantz Members.
DECISION

KRANTZ, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions to the attached proposed decision by an administrative law
judge (ALJ). The ALJ concluded that Respondent City of San Ramon (City) violated the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA)! sections 3503, 3505, and 3506 and PERB Regulations”
32603, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (g) by: (1) declaring impasse without satisfying its
obligation to meet and confer in good faith with Charging Party Service Employees
Intemational Union Local 1021 (SEIU); (2) unilaterally imposing the City’s last, best, and final

offer (LBFO) even though the parties were not at a bona fide impasse following good faith

"The MMBA is codified at Goverment Code section 3500 et seg. Unless otherwise
specified, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

PERB Regulations are codified at Califomia Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

________________________
negotiations; (3) unilaterally imposing new terms and conditions of employment, including a
reopener provision allowing the City, but not SEIU, to demand bargaining, for a specified
period of time; and (4) failing to resume negotiations in good faith when SEIU made new
proposals amounting to changed circumstances. Both the City and SEIU except to the
proposed decision.3
We have reviewed the entire administrative record and have considered the parties’
exceptions and responses in light of applicable law.4 The record supports the ALJ’s factual
findings with one exception, which we correct below. The ALJ’s conclusions of law are well
reasoned and consistent with applicable law with minor exceptions, which we correct. We
affirm the proposed decision and adopt it as the decision of the Board itself, subject to the
following discussion.
3 SEIU requested oral argument pursuant to PERB Regulation 32315. The Board
denies requests for oral argument when an adequate record has been prepared, the parties had
ample opportunity to present briefs and have availed themselves of that opportunity, and the
issues before the Board are sufficiently clear to make oral argument unnecessary. (City of
Modesto (2008) PERB Decision No. 1994-M, pp. 8-9.) This case satisfies all of the above
criteria. We therefore deny SEIU’s request for oral argument.
4 Each party asks us to reject a document filed by the other, but we decline to do so.
SEIU contends that the Board should not consider the City’s Reply in Support of its Statement
of Exceptions. PERB Regulations neither expressly permit nor preclude reply briefs. The
Board has long held that it will accept a reply brief if it aids the Board in its decision-making,
particularly where a response has raised new issues, discussed new case law, or formulated a
new defense. (City of Milpitas (2015) PERB Decision No. 2443-M, pp. 13-14.) We find that
the City’s reply brief satisfies this standard. The City, for its part, objects that SEIU’s
opposition to the City’s exceptions, in addition to responding to each exception, incorporates
by reference SEIU’s post-hearing brief to the ALJ. The Board has held that merely
incorporating an earlier brief by reference is not sufficiently specific to explain a party’s
exceptions. (San Diego Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 368, p. 13.)
A party responding to exceptions should also be specific in its arguments and cannot assume
the Board will parse a previous brief that it chooses to incorporate by reference. SEIU,
however, provided specific responses to the City’s exceptions and did not violate any PERB
Regulation.
2

________________________
BACKGROUND
There is no need to repeat here the ALJ’s procedural history and extensive factual
findings. We summarize the background for context only.
SEIU and the City were parties to a four-year memorandum of understanding (MOU)
covering approximately 50 maintenance employees. The MOU initially ran through
December 31, 2010, but in June 2010 the parties extended the MOU through June 30, 2011. In
their extension agreement, the parties froze merit-based pay raises until the new expiration date.
In 2011, the parties commenced negotiations for a new MOU. Prior to starting
negotiations, the City announced that it was considering new cost-saving employment terms for
represented and unrepresented employees alike.5 On April 29, 2011,6 the City made a
comprehensive proposal incorporating these cost savings measures.7 SEIU responded on
May 10, and two weeks later SEIU requested that the City provide a counteroffer. The City,
however, insisted that SEIU first respond more fully to all City proposals.
On June 6, SEIU made a proposal regarding non-economic issues. The City stated that
unless SEIU was willing to sign a side letter extending the merit pay freeze past June 30, the City
would present an LBFO at the next session.
On June 15, SEIU presented a comprehensive proposal and conceded to the City’s
demand to extend the merit pay freeze. However, the parties never agreed on additional details
5 These terms included: (1) continuation of the merit pay freeze through June 30, 2012;
(2) up to 12 furlough days (estimated at 4.5 percent of salary); (3) an increase of one percent in
employee retirement contributions (up from one percent); (4) a two-tier retirement plan with a
lower formula for new hires; and (5) a retirement incentive program.
6 Unless otherwise noted, all dates hereafter refer to 2011.
7 The parties met three times prior to April 29, and the parties disagree to what extent
those meetings were bargaining sessions. As discussed below, we find that dispute to be
immaterial to the outcome, and we therefore decline to resolve it.
3

________________________
that the City had included in its draft side letter extending the merit pay freeze, and the City
proceeded to present its LBFO. The LBFO contained all but one of the significant new cost-
saving employment terms that the City had sought throughout negotiations; the City dropped its
demand to create a new, less costly retirement tier.
SEIU countered by e-mail on June 16. Two days later, the City Council (Council)
rejected SEIU’s counteroffer and established June 28 as a deadline for either reaching a tentative
agreement or taking “final action” to resolve the impasse. The City notified SEIU that it must
accept the LBFO, or otherwise the parties would be at impasse and the City would take final
action. SEIU responded that bargaining should continue, and SEIU asked the City for its fiscal
targets. The City determined that SEIU’s effort to meet the City’s fiscal needs was too late
and/or moot, given that the Council had decided to maintain its LBFO.
On June 28, the Council announced that the parties were at impasse and voted to
implement the City’s LBFO effective July 1.8 The Council also adopted the same economic
terms for its unrepresented employees. Two days later, SEIU wrote to the City indicating that
SEIU was prepared to present substantial movement on four critical issues separating the parties.
The City responded that “negotiations are complete” but that the City would nonetheless meet
with SEIU “in the interests of good labor relations.” The City then implemented its LBFO
effective July 1.
The parties met on July 8, and SEIU presented its new concessions. After some
discussion, the City’s negotiator stated that SEIU could agree to the City’s LBFO so the parties
could declare victory, or he would “pick up his marbles and go home.” Despite this ultimatum,
8 The City’s employee relations ordinance did not require the parties to engage in post-
impasse procedures, nor did the parties agree to do so in this case. Moreover, all pertinent
events in this case occurred before the California Legislature added to the MMBA the post-
impasse procedures that are now codified at section 3505.4 et seq.
4

the parties met several more times during July, August, and September. On September 13, the
City presented SEIU’s latest proposal to the Council, but the Council rejected it.
DISCUSSION
Although the Board reviews exceptions to a proposed decision de novo, to the extent that
a proposed decision adequately addresses issues raised by certain exceptions, the Board need not
further analyze those exceptions. (City of Calexico (2017) PERB Decision No. 2541-M,
pp. 1-2.) The Board also need not address alleged errors that would not impact the outcome.
(Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) PERB Decision No. 2432, p. 2; Regents of the
University of California (1991) PERB Decision No. 891-H, p. 4.)
Several of the City’s exceptions challenge findings that, at their crux, are based on the
ALJ’s credibility determinations. While the Board is free to draw contrary inferences from the
evidence, it generally defers to an ALJ’s credibility determination absent evidence to support
overturning such a conclusion. (Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
(2010) PERB Decision No. 2093-H, p. 3.) Based on our review of the record in this matter, we
decline the City’s request that we overturn multiple factual findings that turn on credibility
determinations, including the ALJ’s well-supported findings as to statements that the parties
made to one another during their negotiations.
The City also asserts that the ALJ relied too heavily on the City’s bargaining notes. In
determining how much weight to afford bargaining notes, an ALJ must consider all relevant
factors, including but not limited to the notes’ quality, their consistency with other evidence,
and whether the notes were taken contemporaneously. (Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare
System (2015) PERB Decision No. 2433-M, adopting proposed decision at p. 10.) While
bargaining notes are merely one form of evidence and can be overcome by credible conflicting
5

evidence, the ALJ considered all relevant factors in determining the appropriate weight the
City’s bargaining notes should bear.
We turn now to the central issues raised in the parties’ exceptions.
I. 	Bargaining Conduct Prior to and Including the City’s Impasse Declaration
The City’s employee relations ordinance defines “impasse” as a point at which the
parties differences “remain so substantial and prolonged that further meeting and conferring
would be futile.” This definition comports with PERB precedent and therefore sets the
relevant standard for this dispute. (County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M
(Riverside), p. 12.)
The City’s primary contention is that the ALJ erred by finding that the City declared
impasse before the parties had reached a bona fide impasse following good faith negotiations.
If the City were correct that the parties had reached a bona fide, good faith impasse, the City
would have been privileged to implement changes in terms and conditions of employment
reasonably comprehended in its LBFO. (El Dorado County Superior Court (2017) PERB
Decision No. 2523-C, p. 11.) SEIU asserts that the parties were not at impasse, and SEIU
alternatively contends that any impasse resulted from the City’s allegedly bad faith conduct.
Because the City raises impasse as a defense to a unilateral change, the City must
demonstrate that the parties were at impasse in their negotiations. (North Star Steel Co. (1991)
305 NLRB 45.) Even if the gap between the parties’ positions was sufficiently substantial and
prolonged, however, that would not end our inquiry. An employer may declare impasse only if it
has bargained in good faith throughout negotiations, from “inception through exhaustion of
statutory or other applicable impasse resolution procedures,” and its “conduct is free of unfair
labor practices.” (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision No. 2341-M (San Jose), p. 40.)
6

________________________
Absent compliance with these principles, an employer’s impasse declaration is evidence of bad
faith, irrespective of whether the employer goes on to change terms and conditions of
employment. (Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.)9
To comply with the duty to meet and confer in good faith found in MMBA
section 3505, each party must “seriously ‘attempt to resolve differences and reach a common
ground.’” (Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court (1978)
23 Cal.3d 55, 61-62; Kings In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2009) PERB
Decision No. 2009-M, p. 11.) To determine whether a party has negotiated with the requisite
subjective intention of reaching an agreement, the Board considers all evidence relevant to
intent, including the parties’ conduct away from the bargaining table. (San Jose, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2341-M, pp. 22-23.) The “ultimate question” is whether the respondent’s
conduct, when viewed in its totality, was sufficiently egregious to frustrate negotiations. (Id. at
p. 19.) A single indicator of bad faith, if egregious, can be a sufficient basis for finding that a
negotiating party has failed to bargain in good faith. (Ibid.)
On appeal, the City addresses not only the primary bad faith bargaining indicia that the
ALJ analyzed—allegations that the City adopted a “take-it-or-leave-it” approach and rushed to
impasse—but also a further issue that the ALJ did not expressly consider: whether the City
engaged in lawful “hard bargaining.” The City attempts to raise this issue as a shield, asserting
that all of its conduct falls into the category of lawful hard bargaining.
9 If an employer declares impasse without reaching a bona fide impasse after good faith
negotiations, but the employer neither changes employment terms nor refuses to continue
bargaining, the Board considers that evidence under the totality of conduct test. (Riverside,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) In contrast, if the employer in those circumstances
refuses to bargain further or proceeds to change employment terms, that constitutes further
evidence of bad faith under the totality test, and it also constitutes a per se violation. (Id. at
p. 11.)
7

________________________
A. Unlawful Inflexibility Versus Lawful Hard Bargaining
It is often a difficult task to distinguish between lawful hard bargaining versus bad faith
adherence to an inflexible position. (Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 13
[noting the fine line between an impasse due to lawful hard bargaining and one that results
from unlawful bad faith].) A party exhibits bad faith if it fails to provide an adequate
explanation for its inflexible position. (County of San Luis Obispo (2015) PERB Decision
No. 2427-M, p. 29; San Bernardino City Unified School District (1998) PERB Decision
No. 1270, adopting proposed decision at pp. 85-86.) However, if a party’s inflexible position
is fairly maintained and rationally supported, such facts do not amount to bad faith, absent
other evidence. (Oakland Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 275, p. 16.)
The ALJ did not determine whether the City’s positions were fairly maintained and
rationally supported. Even assuming that the City did satisfy this standard, however, the City’s
alleged hard bargaining could not shield it from liability if the record supports the ALJ’s
findings that the City short-circuited meaningful discussions by adopting a take-it-or-leave-it
attitude and rushing to impasse.10 In these circumstances, there is no cause for the Board to
depart from the ALJ’s analysis and resolve whether the City’s positions were fairly maintained
and rationally supported.
10 The City alternatively invites us to analyze the instant case under County of Solano
(2014) PERB Decision No. 2402-M, wherein the Board rejected a union’s novel theory that an
employer’s across-the-board demands amounted to unlawfully imposed “coalition bargaining.”
While the Board found no violation in County of Solano, it has noted that an employer comes
“perilously close” to bad faith when it insists that it will not under any circumstances agree to
different terms for different employee groups. (Regents of the University of California (1983)
PERB Decision No. 356-H, p. 21.) Just as the ALJ’s analysis does not turn on the fine
distinction between hard bargaining and bad faith inflexibility, so too, the outcome here is not
contingent on resolving the tensions found in the aforementioned precedent.
8

________________________
B. Adopting A Take-It-or-Leave-It Attitude
The proposed decision found, at pages 38-45, that the City adopted a “take-it-or-leave it”
attitude, which is an indicator of bad faith. (City of Santa Clara (2016) PERB Decision
No. 2476-M, p. 12.) While deferring to the ALJ’s credibility determinations, we have examined
the record to consider whether the City adopted a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, or, conversely, the
parties failed to reach agreement despite good faith attempts to find a mutual path forward. (Id.
at p. 18.) We similarly have reviewed the record to consider whether it supports the ALJ’s
finding that “the City consistently demonstrated a willingness to provide only a ‘perfunctory
review’ of SEIU’s proposals.” (Proposed decision, p. 42.)11
The record supports these findings. The City repeatedly presented its position as an
ultimatum, telling SEIU that it had a choice of either accepting the City’s proposal or arriving at
impasse. The City also showed a predetermination to negotiate or impose its own proposals
without carefully and mutually reviewing the counterproposals, issues, and concessions that
SEIU presented. Via this conduct, the City short-circuited meaningful discussion of substantive
issues and thereby forestalled opportunities to explore a path toward agreement. (Riverside,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 14 [noting that good faith bargaining necessarily entails
willingness to engage in “meaningful discussions”].) The proposed decision is well supported
in its finding that the City declared impasse based not on “the City’s assessment of the parties’
actual differences, but on the fact that it had not achieved capitulation to all of its economic
demands.” (Proposed decision, p. 43.)
11 While evidence of a “perfunctory review” may be considered as a separate bad faith
indicator, the ALJ did not err in choosing to consider that evidence together with the related
allegation that the City adopted a take-it-or-leave-it approach.
9

C. Rushing to Impasse
A party demonstrates bad faith when it rushes to impasse, or if its impasse declaration is
“premature, unfounded, or insincere.” (Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public
Authority (2015) PERB Decision No. 2418-M (Fresno), p. 53.) The proposed decision
determined that the City rushed to impasse, and that “the sequence and evolution of bargaining in
this case is remarkably close to what transpired in City of Selma [(2014)] PERB Decision
No. 2380-M, where the employer desired to implement concession terms of uniform
application to separate units coinciding with the budget process.” (Proposed decision, p. 39.)
As discussed below, in reaching this conclusion the ALJ correctly applied precedent to the
facts of this case.
The Board’s decision in City of Selma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2380-M (Selma),
followed the analysis in Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, wherein the Board
reviewed precedent regarding an employer’s attempt to rush bargaining to meet a budget
timeframe. This precedent generally rejects an employer’s contention that an upcoming budget
deadline constitutes exigent circumstances allowing the employer to accelerate negotiations
unilaterally. (Id. at p. 20 [reviewing and applying precedent, and finding no exigent
circumstances, despite impact of the Great Recession and employer’s argument that new fiscal
year would further weaken its economic position due to a pre-scheduled wage increase taking
effect].) Thus, an employer choosing to hold a budget vote before completing negotiations and
any required post-impasse procedures must refrain from voting on concessions that have not
10

________________________
yet been fully ratified by all bargaining parties. (Selma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2380-M,
pp. 21-22; Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, pp. 20-21.)12
The record supports the ALJ’s finding that the City’s bargaining conduct was designed
to conclude negotiations and adopt new cost-saving measures by the onset of the City’s new
budget cycle. The City was so committed to this plan that it told SEIU it would provide an
LBFO by the end of the fiscal year unless SEIU agreed to an interim side letter extending the
merit pay freeze. Then, when the parties could not agree on all aspects of the proposed side
letter, the City carried through on its threat and declared impasse at the end of the fiscal year.
The City’s rush to impasse here was even more pronounced than in Selma, where the employer
delayed its budget vote by several weeks to allow more time for negotiations. (Selma, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2380-M, p. 8.)
The City emphasizes in its exceptions that the parties met and conferred on three dates
prior to April 29, and the City contends that by failing to label these three meetings as bargaining
sessions, the ALJ did not appreciate the full extent of the parties’ negotiations. SEIU counters
that the parties had not yet finalized their bargaining teams prior to April and that the initial three
meetings did not constitute bargaining. This dispute is immaterial in the present circumstances.
The “ultimate determination of good or bad faith turns, not on a formula for the number of
meetings that must occur or the number of proposals that must be exchanged before a bona fide
impasse exists, but on the effect of a party’s conduct on the course of negotiations.” (San Jose,
12 This principle has its origins in precedent that substantially predates Riverside, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2360-M and Selma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2380-M. (See, e.g., Dublin
Professional Firefighters Local 1885 v. Valley Community Services District (1975)
45 Cal.App.3d 116, 118 [While section 3505 of the MMBA provides that parties shall
endeavor to reach agreement prior to a public agency’s adoption of its final budget for the
ensuing year, the statute’s use of non-mandatory language renders it “only hortatory” and
contrasts starkly with the statute’s other, obligatory mandates, such as the duty to continue
bargaining for a reasonable and adequate amount of time to allow for good faith negotiations].)
11

supra, PERB Decision No. 2341-M, p. 42.) The ALJ considered what took place at the parties’
three meetings prior to April 29, and the proposed decision correctly found that the City’s
conduct at those meetings was consistent with the bad faith conduct the City evidenced
throughout 2011.
The City also asserts that the parties’ unsuccessful discussions during July through
September, post-implementation, demonstrate that the parties were too far apart to warrant
further negotiations before the City declared impasse and imposed its LBFO. However, even
aside from our conclusion, post, that the City further short-circuited good faith negotiations via
statements it made after SEIU made significant concessions in early July, the City’s argument is
not tenable. An employer’s unilateral change to employment terms “makes impossible the give
and take that are the essence of labor relations.” (Vernon Fire Fighters v. City of Vernon (1980)
107 Cal.App.3d 802, 823.) For that reason, even if the City had bargained in good faith during
July through September, we could not accept the inference that the City asks us to draw from the
parties’ failure to reach agreement after the City imposed new terms.
II. 	The Content of The LBFO Terms The City Imposed
The proposed decision found that the City violated the MMBA by imposing the
following language as part of its LBFO:
Section 22 	Term and Effect
This Memorandum of Understanding shall remain in full force and
effect from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012. During the term of
this Agreement, the City may initiate negotiations concerning the
impacts of management rights decisions, amendments to this
Agreement necessitated by a change in law and/or legal judgment
or a concern about the City’s budget or any other negotiable
subject.
12

While the ALJ correctly found this language to constitute an unlawfully-imposed waiver
of the right to bargain, the proposed decision predated our decision in Fresno, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2418-M. For that reason, the proposed decision is no longer accurate in stating that
“PERB has not addressed what constitutes unilateral implementation of an MOU in violation of
[section 3505.7],” and it does not recognize the manner in which Fresno broadened an
employer’s obligations when imposing new terms after reaching a bona fide good faith impasse.
We therefore supplement pages 44-45 of the proposed decision with the following discussion.
In Fresno, supra, PERB Decision No. 2418-M, p. 40, the Board harmonized MMBA
section 3505.7 with other labor relations statutes and clarified employers’ duty to refrain from
unilaterally imposing a waiver of the right to bargain. The Board held that an employer “cannot
impose proposals affecting matters that can only be established by consent,” and, to avoid
confusion, must “segregate or excise from its imposed terms language purporting to ‘establish a
memorandum of understanding’ or other agreement, as well as language that is reasonably
susceptible to such an interpretation.” (Id. at p. 40.)
In this case, the City violated these principles by purporting to impose an MOU, by
imposing a durational term, and by imposing a reopener provision that was available, on its face,
only to the City. Because we write with the benefit of Fresno, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2418-M, and the ALJ did not, we adjust several of the ALJ’s findings. First, the proposed
decision found that the “City Council’s resolution does not state in words the intention to
implement an MOU.” (Proposed decision, p. 45.) We do not adopt this finding, as the
Council’s resolution explicitly adopted the City’s entire LBFO, including the language of
Section 22 set forth ante. Moreover, to the extent that there is ambiguity as to whether the City
13

________________________
“implemented an MOU,” we find that the City failed to excise from its imposition language that
is susceptible to an unlawful interpretation. (Fresno, supra, PERB Decision No. 2418-M,
p. 40.)13
The City also violated its duty to bargain in good faith by imposing a durational term,
because unilaterally imposing new terms for a set duration places an obstacle in the path of
good faith bargaining. (Roosevelt Memorial Medical Center (2006) 348 NLRB 1116, 1117;
see also City of Santa Rosa (2013) PERB Decision No. 2308-M, p. 5 [discussing legislative
purpose behind MMBA section 3505.7].) Imposing a duration for new terms is also
inconsistent with an employer’s affirmative duty to excise from its imposition any language
susceptible to an unlawful interpretation. (Fresno, supra, PERB Decision No. 2418-M, p. 40.)
We supplement the proposed decision and hold that (1) Fresno amended the principles set
forth in Rowland Unified School District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1053 and State of
California (Department of Personnel Administration) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2130-S, and
(2) specifically, an employer cannot impose new terms for a set duration.
The City asserts in its exceptions that it never interpreted its imposed terms as limiting
SEIU’s statutory right to meet and confer. However, our precedents treat this allegation as a per
se violation for which the employer’s motive or intent is irrelevant. (Fresno, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2418-M, pp. 2-3, 15, 37-40.) The City’s argument is therefore not well taken.
13 We also do not adopt the proposed decision’s factual finding, at page 45, that the
City “ignored” SEIU’s “proposal for reopeners limited to the merit pay freeze.” There is
insufficient record evidence to support this finding. In any event, the City’s violation was in
unilaterally imposing a waiver of the right to bargain, and that conclusion remains the same
irrespective of whether SEIU proposed a more limited reopener.
14

III. 	Bargaining Conduct After The City Imposed Its LBFO
Even if parties have reached a bona fide impasse after completing negotiations in good
faith, an impasse “can be terminated by nearly any change in bargaining-related
circumstances” that is sufficient to suggest that “attempts to adjust differences may no longer
be futile.” (PERB v. Modesto City Schools District (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881, 899.) “Most
obviously, an impasse will be broken when one party announces a retreat from some of its
negotiating demands.” (Ibid.) Once impasse is broken, “the duty to bargain revives.” (Ibid.)
The ALJ found that after the City imposed its LBFO, SEIU made concessions that were
sufficient to constitute changed circumstances requiring the City to bargain in good faith. The
ALJ also found that the City did not do so. The record supports these findings. The City
responded to SEIU’s request for further bargaining by stating that “negotiations are complete”
and that it would meet with SEIU “in the interests of good labor relations.” When they met,
SEIU presented new concessions, but the City’s negotiator again presented the City’s position as
an ultimatum, telling SEIU to accept the LBFO or he would “pick up his marbles and go home.”
The City argues on appeal that the ALJ did not credit the City sufficiently for its
subsequent meetings with SEIU during the summer and fall of 2011. We find no merit to this
exception, as the City’s conduct prevented meaningful good faith negotiations during that
timeframe. Three independent rationales each support this conclusion: (1) the City failed to
withdraw its damaging assertion that negotiations were closed and that it was agreeing to meet
merely for the sake of good labor relations; (2) the City continued to adopt a “take-it-or-leave-
it” attitude; and (3) the City had unlawfully imposed the very terms under discussion, thereby
forcing SEIU to start from a position of having to talk the City back to the status quo.
(San Mateo County Community College District (1979) PERB Decision No. 94, p. 15.)
15

________________________
We therefore affirm the ALJ’s conclusion that the City did not engage in good faith
negotiations in the summer and fall of 2011, after imposing its LBFO.14
ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in
this case, we find that the City of San Ramon (City) violated MMBA sections 3503, 3505,
3505.7, and 3506, and PERB Regulation 32603, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (g), by:
(1) declaring that the parties were at impasse without satisfying its obligation to meet and
confer in good faith with the Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (SEIU);
(2) unilaterally imposing the City’s last, best, and final offer even though the parties were not
at a bona fide impasse following good faith negotiations; (3) unilaterally imposing purported
contractual terms for a specified period of time, including a reopener provision allowing the
City, but not SEIU, to demand bargaining during the purported contractual term; and
(4) failing to resume negotiations in good faith when SEIU made new proposals amounting to
changed circumstances.
14 The ALJ found this set of facts to constitute an unalleged violation that could
properly be considered under PERB precedent. We decline to decide SEIU’s cross-exception
arguing that the Complaint had adequately pleaded this theory by alleging that the City “made
statements to the effect that it ‘had no duty to negotiate’ with [SEIU], given [the City’s]
implementation of its Last, Best, and Final Offer.” We need not decide this exception, as it has
no impact on the outcome. (Los Angeles Unified School District, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2432, p. 2; Regents of the University of California, supra, PERB Decision No. 891-H,
p. 4.) The City, for its part, excepts to the ALJ’s decision to consider this allegation, claiming
that the City was prejudiced because it was not on notice that it was required to defend against
a “changed circumstances” allegation. We have reviewed the record and find that the City had
adequate notice and an opportunity to defend itself. In its opening statement, the City began
defending itself against the claim that SEIU’s post-impasse concessions led to a renewed
bargaining duty. Thereafter, counsel for both parties examined the City’s chief negotiator
regarding these facts. The City does not assert that the ALJ’s unalleged violation analysis
contains any other errors. We have nonetheless independently reviewed the record, and we
find that the ALJ’s determination is consistent with precedent governing unalleged violations.
(Fresno County Superior Court (2008) PERB Decision No. 1942-C, p. 14.)
16

Pursuant to MMBA section 3509, subdivision (b), it is hereby ORDERED that the City,
its governing board and its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing to meet and confer in good faith by either declaring that the
parties are at impasse without satisfying its obligation to meet and confer in good faith, or
unilaterally imposing its last, best, and final offer when no bona fide good faith impasse exists.
2. 	Unilaterally imposing purported contractual terms for a specified period
of time, including a reopener provision allowing the City, but not SEIU, to demand bargaining
during the purported contractual term.
3. 	Failing to resume negotiations in good faith following the breaking of
impasse as a result of changed circumstances.
4. 	Denying SEIU its right to represent bargaining unit employees in their
employment relations with the City.
5. 	Interfering with the right of bargaining unit employees to be represented
by the employee organization of their choosing.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Rescind imposition of the last, best and final offer that the City imposed
on or about June 28, 2011, and return to the status quo as it existed before imposition, until
such time as the parties complete a successor MOU or reach a bona fide impasse following
good faith negotiations.
2. 	Make all affected employees whole for loss of wages or benefits due to
the City’s violations of the MMBA, including interest at 7 percent per annum.
17

3. 	With regard to the make-whole remedy and the order to return to the
status quo, this Order shall be stayed for 45 days to provide the parties an opportunity to meet
and confer over a mutually acceptable remedy. In the event no agreement is reached within
45 days and the parties have not mutually agreed to an extension of time within which to do so,
SEIU shall notify the General Counsel of PERB, or the General Counsel’s designee, so that
compliance proceedings may be initiated.
4. 	Within ten (10) workdays of the service of a final decision in this matter,
post copies of the Notice, attached hereto as an Appendix, at all work locations where notices
to employees in the City are customarily posted. The Notice must be signed by an authorized
agent of the City, indicating that it will comply with the terms of this Order. Such posting
shall be maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be
taken to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced, or covered with any
other material. In addition to the physical posting of paper notices, the Notice shall be posted
by electronic message, intranet, internet site, and other electronic means customarily used by
the City to communicate with its employees in the bargaining unit represented by SEIU. (City
of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M.)
5. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel of PERB, or the General Counsel’s designee. The City shall
provide reports in writing, as directed by the General Counsel or her designee. All reports
regarding compliance with this Order shall be concurrently served on SEIU.
Members Banks and Winslow joined in this Decision.
18

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. SF-CE-855-M, Service Employees
International Union Local 1021 v. City of San Ramon, in which the parties had the right to
participate, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has found that the City of San
Ramon (hereinafter “City” or “We”) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA),
Government Code sections 3503, 3505, 3505.7, and 3506, as well as subdivisions (a), (b), (c),
and (g) of PERB Regulation 32603 (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, § 31001, et seq.) by:
(1) prematurely declaring that the parties were at impasse without satisfying its obligation to
meet and confer in good faith with the Service Employees International Union Local 1021
(SEIU); (2) unilaterally imposing a last, best, and final offer even though the parties were not
at a bona fide impasse following good faith negotiations; (3) unilaterally imposing purported
contractual terms for a specified time, including a reopener provision allowing the City, but not
SEIU, to demand bargaining during the purported contractual term; and (4) failing to resume
negotiations in good faith when SEIU made new proposals amounting to changed
circumstances.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing to meet and confer in good faith by either declaring that the
parties are at impasse without satisfying its obligation to meet and confer in good faith, or
unilaterally imposing a last, best, and final offer when no bona fide good faith impasse exists.
2. 	Unilaterally imposing purported contractual terms for a specified period
of time, including a reopener provision allowing the City, but not SEIU, to demand bargaining
during the purported contractual term.
3. 	Failing to resume negotiations in good faith following the breaking of
impasse as a result of changed circumstances.
4. 	Denying SEIU its right to represent bargaining unit employees in their
employment relations with the City.
5. 	Interfering with the right of bargaining unit employees to be represented
by the employee organization of their choosing.
(continued on next page)
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.

B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Rescind imposition of the last, best, and final offer that the City imposed
on or about June 28, 2011, and return to the status quo as it existed before imposition, until
such time as the parties complete a successor MOU or reach a bona fide impasse following
good faith negotiations.
2. 	Make all affected employees whole for any and all losses of wages or
benefits due to the City’s violations of the MMBA, including interest at 7 percent per annum.
Dated: _____________________ 	CITY OF SAN RAMON
By: _________________________________
Authorized Agent
2

________________________
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL 1021,
Charging Party,
v.
CITY OF SAN RAMON,
Respondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. SF-CE-855-M
PROPOSED DECISION
(January 28, 2015)
Appearances: Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, by Kerianne R. Steele, Attorney, for Service
Employees International Union Local 1021; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, by Jack W. Hughes
and Arlin B. Kachalia, Attorneys, for City of San Ramon.
Before Shawn P. Cloughesy, Chief Administrative Law Judge.
This case alleges a public employer implementing the terms of its last, best, and final
offer without completing negotiations; implementing a one-year term memorandum of
understanding with reopening provisions favoring the public employer; and engaging in
surface bargaining in violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. The public employer denies
any unfair practice.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Service Employees International Union Local 1021 (SEIU) filed an unfair practice
charge and an amended charge against the City of San Ramon (City) under the Meyers-Milias-
Brown Act (MMBA or Act)1 on June 24, and September 19, 2011, respectively. On April 13,
2012, the Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB)
issued a complaint alleging that the City failed to meet and confer in good faith by
1 The MMBA is codified at Government Code section 3500 et seq. Hereafter all
statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.

________________________
(1) implementing the terms of its last, best, and final offer without having completed
negotiations; (2) implementing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for a term of one year
with reopener provisions favoring the City; and (3) engaging in surface bargaining. This
conduct was alleged to have violated MMBA sections 3503, 3505, and 3506, and PERB
Regulation 32603, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c).2 The alleged premature implementation of the
last, best, and final offer was also alleged to be inconsistent with a local rule in violation of
section 3503, 3505, 3506, and 3509, subdivision (b), and PERB Regulation 32603, subdivision
(g).
On May 14, 2012, the City filed its answer to the complaint, denying the material
allegations and raising affirmative defenses.
On July 11, 2012, an informal settlement conference was held, but the matter was not
resolved.
On November 14, 15, and 16, 2012, and February 12, and April 16, and 17, 2013, a
formal hearing was conducted in Oakland.
On July 29, 2013, the matter was submitted for decision following the submission of
post-hearing briefs.
FINDINGS OF FACT
SEIU is an “employee organization” within the meaning of MMBA section 3501,
subdivision (a), and an “exclusive representative” of a bargaining unit of public employees
within the meaning of PERB Regulation 32016, subdivision (b). The City is a public agency
within the meaning of section 3501, subdivision (c).
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2

SEIU represents a bargaining unit of maintenance employees. There were
approximately 50 employees in the unit on July 1, 2011. Another group of miscellaneous
employees in the City is unrepresented.
Negotiations Background
SEIU and the City were parties to an MOU for a term of January 1, 2007, through
December 31, 2010. In June 2010, the parties extended the MOU through June 30, 2011. The
extension included a one year freeze on merit-based pay raises, coupled with a grant of retiree
dental and vision coverage for bargaining unit employees, a benefit previously held only by
unrepresented employees. The extension agreement listed a specific term for the merit raise
freeze – an end date of June 30, 2011 – but none for the retiree medical benefit. Merit raises
by practice are awarded on the employee’s anniversary date based upon the performance
evaluation.
Like most municipalities in California, the City was suffering the effects of the 2008
recession, and like others had been enduring several years of a “structural deficit.” A
structural deficit is the condition where the adopted annual budget ends the year with a
shortfall, requiring the tapping of reserves or other measures to end in balance. The City was
suffering from flat or declining revenues and increased costs largely due to employee health
and retirement obligations. In the fiscal year 2010-2011, the City was expecting to end with a
$2.9 million deficit and projecting a deficit of $5.1 million with a rollover budget in 2011-
2012. Projected increased costs for the new fiscal year included increased health care
premiums, increased contributions to the California Public Employees Retirement System
(CalPERS), and increased retiree health care costs.
3

________________________
On January 11, 2011, the City held an informational meeting for its miscellaneous
employees, both represented and unrepresented. SEIU representatives were not invited. City
Manager Herb Moniz (Moniz) and Administrative Services Director Greg Rogers (Rogers)
made a PowerPoint presentation of the City’s financial situation. The City provided the
financial picture described above. The City explained the financial situation was better than
other municipalities and that the City still had reserves to cover some of the projected 2011-
2012 deficit.3 The City indicated that a hiring freeze had been imposed, but other cost-saving
measures were being considered. These included: (1) continuation of the merit pay freeze
through June 30, 2012, (2) up to 12 furlough days (estimated at 4.5 percent of salary), (3) an
increase of one percent in employee contributions to CalPERS4 (up from one percent), (4) a
two-tier retirement plan with a lower formula for new hires, and (5) a retirement incentive
program. The City republished the five bullet-pointed cost reduction items on its intranet
following the presentation.
January 21, 2011 Meeting
On January 21, 20115, the City met with SEIU Field Representative Angela Osayande
(Osayande) and Chapter President Chris Southwick (Southwick). Moniz and Rogers gave the
same PowerPoint presentation presented to the employees. Moniz stated the City wanted these
measures implemented by July 1, 2011. The PowerPoint slide on concessions includes the
words “options to consider.” Although the City had desired to begin negotiations six months
prior to the expiration of the existing MOU, SEIU did not elect its bargaining team until
3 A local newspaper article reporting on the adoption of the 2011-2012 budget stated
the City had reserves of $27.2 million.
4 California Public Employees Retirement System
5 Hereafter, all dates are in 2011, unless otherwise indicated.
4

February. Shortly after the meeting, Moniz announced his retirement and resigned his
position.
February 25, 2011 Meeting
On February 25, 2011, a meeting occurred between the parties. Rogers and Finance
Division Manager Eva Phelps (Phelps) represented the City. Osayande, Southwick, and
Maintenance Technician William Hudson (Hudson) attended for SEIU. Rogers, who had taken
the lead from Moniz as acting City Manager, asked when negotiations could begin and
reiterated the City’s desire for economic concessions. Rogers stated the City was seeking a
one-year successor MOU.
SEIU indicated it was opposed to furloughs and wanted a two-year agreement. Rogers
replied that all employees were accepting furloughs. Osayande reminded the City that other
employees were unrepresented and the City had healthy reserves. Osayande told the City that
the union would consult its members on the furlough proposal.
SEIU verbally requested a number of items of information: (1) the City’s
comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), (2) the City’s budget, (3) the CalPERS
actuarial report, (4) the new CalPERS contribution rates, (5) the cost savings of the proposed
furlough days, and (6) the cost savings of the one percent increase in the CalPERS contribution
rates. SEIU was also interested in a longer, three-to-five year projection of PERS rate changes.
The City informed SEIU that the CAFR and City budget were available online.
At some point in the meeting, Rogers angrily told Osayande, “This is San Ramon, and
the union is not going to come in here and tell us what to do. This is not Oakland.” Osayande
negotiates for SEIU in Oakland.
5

________________________
Bargaining notes were kept throughout the negotiations by Employee/General Support
Services Division Manager Antoinette Renault (Renault).6 These notes indicate an early
caucus was followed by an exchange on rising pension and health care costs and the City’s
statement that it wanted all miscellaneous employees to be treated the same. The City reported
that safety employees would be accepting a one percent increase in retirement contributions
and a second tier system for new hires. SEIU responded that a two-year agreement would get
the parties to a point in the future when the economic recovery would likely begin. The notes
also indicate that SEIU raised several non-economic issues, including “stability in scheduling.”
The parties concluded the meeting by scheduling their next meeting for March 25.
On March 24, Phelps emailed Osayande with the furlough savings figure ($151,366)
and the one percent retirement contribution ($32,902) for the represented group only. Phelps’s
assistant had emailed a response to the requested items on March 21, but Phelps later realized
that the two cost items were incorrectly calculated, resulting in the March 24 transmission.
The delay in providing the information was a result of Phelps being on four weeks of jury duty.
March 25 Meeting
As would become the custom, the parties began their March 25 meeting at 10:00 a.m.
Opening the meeting, Osayande stated SEIU was not ready to proceed because the information
6 Renault was tasked by the City with taking notes of the meetings. The notes were
entered in the record as a joint exhibit, and both parties used the notes extensively as a script
with witnesses to refresh recollection. The notes include the timing of breaks, identify the
speakers, include the language of the speakers, and contemporaneously follow the exchanges.
They are given significant weight here in light of all the circumstances. Bargaining notes are
regarded as business records in labor cases and may be received into the record as substantive
evidence of what occurred at bargaining meetings. (Continental Can Co. (1988) 291 NLRB
290, 294 [hearsay exceptions]; Pacific Coast Metal Trades Dist. Council (1986) 282 NLRB
239, 239 fn. 2 [same]; Mack Trucks, Inc. (1985) 277 NLRB 711, 725 [same, and weight needs
to be judged].)
6

response was delivered late. The City reiterated its economic demands. Osayande asserted
that two-tier pension plans provided no immediate savings. She stated that the merit-based
salary freeze needed to be negotiated. Hudson presented a rough calculation of the amount
saved by the previous merit pay freeze. Osayande described the meeting as a 20-minute
bargaining session. Renault estimated it lasting two hours, noting that most of the meetings
were between one and one half, and two hours. Based on the bargaining notes, the meeting
was most probably around one hour. SEIU did not present any union proposals at this meeting.
According to the notes, both sides postured on the degree of the City’s financial distress
regarding pension and health care costs.
SEIU asked about ground rules for the negotiations. Rogers responded that the City did
not believe in ground rules. Hudson quoted Rogers as explaining the reason: “This is how we
usually do it. We tell you what we have. You tell us what you want. And we sign off, and
that’s it.” Hudson made a comment about the City having a “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude. The
parties agreed to the next meeting, to be held on April 29.
April 1 Work Schedule Announcement
All of the bargaining unit’s members perform maintenance work of some kind, while
some are of a more skilled nature than others. On April 1, Public Services Director Karen
McNamara (McNamara) issued a memorandum announcing a change in work schedules for the
spring and summer period affecting approximately 31 of the unit’s staff. McNamara had
determined during the peak period of City’s park and recreation facility usage, maintenance
staff needed to work on the weekends in addition to their regular Monday through Friday
schedule. This was necessary to make the maintenance staff “available and visible” to park
7

and pool users. The primary function of the weekend crew was trash removal and restroom
clean-up.
Prior to 2011, the City had a practice of changing schedules to provide weekend
coverage during the summer months. Under the prior practice, approximately 16 of the unit’s
employees were affected. For a number of years, weekend duty was handled by teams of six
employees, each on a rotating schedule.
In her memorandum to the staff, McNamara stated that the City needed coverage for a
longer period on the weekend days, that is, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:10 p.m. Two shifts would be
utilized. The City planned to assign a weekend coordinator to oversee the work of the entire
team. The coordinators would check in with the staff before the start of the first and second
shifts to assure the maintenance routes were implemented. McNamara stated that the
“consensus” of the staff was to schedule both days of the weekend with the same team of
employees. She wrote:
This way, work left undone or that comes up on Saturday can be
completed on Sunday by the same team without the need for a
transmitting that information. Staff indicated that in order to
have longer periods between weekend assignments, that it was
more beneficial to schedule both days. The other option would
be a Saturday or Sunday of a given weekend, however, the
frequency that one would work a weekend would be increased.
Section 8.1 (“Hours of Work”) of the expiring MOU provided: “The regular work
hours for unit employees shall be five (5) shifts of seven and one-half (7.5) work hours in a
seven (7) day work period.” Section 8.2 (“Work Week”) provided: “The workweek for
employees as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a regular recurring period of
168 hours in the form of seven consecutive 24 hour periods. The workweek is not necessarily
the same as the calendar week.” SEIU filed an unfair practice charge alleging that
8

________________________
McNamara’s schedule announcement was a unilateral change the City refused to negotiate.
The charge was withdrawn after the events in question here.7
Maintenance employees in SEIU’s unit objected to the new schedule because the MOU
provisions permitted the City to schedule them for ten consecutive days by scheduling the first
five days of an employee’s weekly assignment at the end of the seven day workweek and the
next five days at the beginning of the following workweek, thus denying employees any
weekend day off during the two-week assignment. Other employees worked seven days in a
row, and some had 10-hour shifts. The City paid no overtime. None was required under the
FLSA which were the only wage and hour provisions that applied to municipal employees.
When McNamara asserted the practice did not violate the FLSA, SEIU contended that if
nothing else, the practice circumvented the intent of law.
Hudson disputed McNamara’s justification regarding the difficulty of transmitting
information on what work needed to be done over the weekend. He testified that the schedule
was prompted by a complaint by one employee that the Saturday crew was not emptying
enough garbage cans, leaving it for the Sunday crew.
SEIU circulated a petition among the employees and presented the signatures to the
City Council, but without effect. The City’s implementation forced SEIU to develop a
bargaining proposal that would ameliorate the effects of the new schedule.
April 29 Meeting
With Rogers ascending to the city manager position and assuming new duties, City
Attorney Sheryl Schaffner (Schaffner) arranged for Attorney Jack Hughes (Hughes) to be
7 SEIU’s unfair practice charge number SF-CE-838-M was filed on June 3, 2011 and
withdrawn on January 26, 2012.
9

retained as the City’s chief negotiator. The City was concerned about what it perceived as
SEIU’s “lack of sense of urgency” regarding the negotiations, particularly in light of the July 1
sunset date of the merit pay freeze.
Rogers wrote to Osayande on April 14 expressing these concerns and requesting a
formal response by SEIU to the City’s economic proposals as well as the scheduling of weekly
meetings. Osayande responded by email on April 26, stating her disagreement over Rogers’s
characterization of the current negotiations, asserting that the January 21 meeting did not
constitute negotiations and the January Powerpoint presentation was not a formal proposal.
Also on April 26, Osayande wrote to Rogers with a new information request containing 13
items of more detailed financial information.
When the parties met on April 29, the City introduced Hughes. Hughes was
accompanied by Schaffner, Phelps, and Renault. SEIU was represented by Osayande and three
chapter members, including Hudson.
Hughes testified that he tries to incorporate interest-based principles into his bargaining
by assessing the needs and wants of the union and having discussions that may lead to creative
ways of solving problems. When receiving a proposal from the union, he seeks to ascertain the
underlying reason behind it. Hughes prepares by studying the employer’s finances, the MOU,
and “how the place is working.” He tries to develop a rapport with the other side and develop
momentum early on. Hughes was instructed that he needed to achieve a one year term, not
increase the City’s costs, and achieve some modest concessions from SEIU.
Hughes repeated the City’s contention that the parties had been bargaining and that its
Powerpoint presentation constituted a proposal. Osayande disagreed and requested a written
proposal. During the morning portion of the meeting, the parties went through the City’s
10

response to SEIU’s information request, item by item. Following the lunch break, the City
presented a “comprehensive” offer with a one year term. The proposal included:
(1) restoration of the merit pay freeze through completion of negotiations, (2) authorization for
12 furlough days, (3) a second-tier retirement system, (4) a one percent increase in employee
retirement contributions, and (5) a reopener clause allowing the City during the one-year term
to “initiate negotiation concerning the impacts of management rights decisions, amendments to
this Agreement necessitated by a change in law and/or legal judgment or a concern about the
City’s budget or any other negotiable subject.”
According to Hughes, the City’s top priority was the one year term. Hughes would
draft a duration clause with a broad reopener for the City due to the “very dynamic legislative
and economic environment where change was happening quickly.” He asserted that nothing in
the language was intended to waive the bargaining rights of SEIU, and the reopener clause was
merely to “facilitate discussion if the need arose.” On cross-examination, he characterized the
proposal as an “embellished” reopener clause, but conceded that it permitted the City to reopen
negotiations during the term of the MOU without limitation as to subject. Hughes added that
he expected SEIU to come back seeking that the reopener language be bilateral. When asked if
one was even necessary given the one year term, Hughes did not directly answer the question.
Osayande rejected the merit pay freeze and stated SEIU would present a
counterproposal. Hughes expressed openness to ideas from SEIU. Osayande indicated SEIU
might accept furloughs. SEIU’s practice in contract negotiations is to lead with non-economic
proposals in the hopes of achieving tentative agreements before tackling what are anticipated
to be the more formidable economic issues. SEIU requested an economic justification for the
number of furlough days sought. SEIU stated that it would convey the proposal to the
11

employees at the next general membership meeting. Near the end of the meeting, Osayande
stated that SEIU would present non-economic proposals in week of June 9th. The parties
agreed to future meetings on May 10 and May 24. The session lasted somewhat over two
hours.
On May 5, Phelps emailed Osayande purporting to provide the “roll-up” costs. The
email provides no additional information, but refers Osayande to an exhibit outlining the
benefits available to all employees previously provided on April 29. The exhibit appears to be
an employee policy document listing benefits available to all employees. Despite Hughes’s
contention that the information provided satisfied SEIU’s request, the requested “ ‘add-on’
percentages used by the City for all salary related premiums added to salary” was not provided.
It appears that if the City did not actually have or use a specific percentage as a calculation of
roll-up costs, that point was never clarified between the parties.
After consulting with members, SEIU prepared a proposal for presentation at the next
bargaining session.
May 10 Meeting
SEIU opened the meeting by presenting its counteroffer. As promised, SEIU agreed to
furlough days, but only five instead of 12 and pre-scheduled dates instead of setting them at
management’s discretion. Though the dates were bunched in the holiday season, SEIU
proposed to allow the City to amortize the pay reduction over 26 pay periods. SEIU demanded
a term of July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2014. SEIU also agreed to the one percent pension
contribution. SEIU further proposed an amendment of the first sentence of section 8.1, adding
the italicized language: “The regular hours for unit employees shall be five (5) shifts of seven
and one-half (7.5) work hours in a seven (7) day work period with two (2) days of rest
12

________________________
proceeding (sic) the five (5) day shift unless emergency work (overtime) or scheduled overtime
has been approved by all parties.”
According to the bargaining notes, Hughes asserted that the amortization plan could
create a “legal hiccup.” Osayande responded that the law does not address furlough pay
reductions. In response to the three-year term, Hughes asked if the union was accepting the
second tier retirement plan. Osayande said the membership had not been consulted on that
proposal and would want more time to consider it. Hughes asserted its importance in regard to
future hires. Hughes also asked for a counterproposal on the merit pay freeze. Again,
Osayande stated the members had not been consulted. Hughes had been warned about SEIU
delaying negotiations and he was now sensing this to be the case.
Osayande broached non-economic issues, specifically focusing on the workweek issue.
When Osayande cited 10 consecutive day work shifts and the unfair practice charge, Hughes
responded that he would confirm that overtime was being paid. Hudson and Osayande
provided more explanation of the stress and fatigue of working 10 days straight, especially on
weekends when park users were present and heat indexes were high, making cleaning the
restrooms difficult. Hughes responded that the schedule was financially driven.8 Hughes also
testified that he stated his belief that SEIU’s proposal on section 8.1 did not fully address the
employees’ concerns and that SEIU needed to amend the proposal. The meeting lasted about
two hours.
There was an issue regarding released time for negotiation preparations. The City
reluctantly granted a full day of released time for three employee negotiators to prepare for the
8 At the end of the meeting, Osayande recognized that the two paragraphs of the
counterproposal concerning the section 8.2’s work week and section 8.6’s pay periods were
superfluous and they were withdrawn.
13

________________________
next negotiation session, after Hughes stated that preparation should be on the employees’
volunteered time.
On May 18, the members were consulted regarding the second tier retirement proposal
and the wage freeze.
May 24 Meeting
SEIU invited Field Supervisor Wayne Templeton (Templeton) to the negotiations.
Templeton was Osayande’s supervisor. Templeton offered comments reflecting good faith
while again cautioning that economic issues typically get resolved later in negotiations and
observing that parties often begin by resolving non-economic issues. Hughes did not
disagree.9 Templeton would remain for the duration of the negotiations and took the lead at
various points.
After Templeton was introduced, Osayande turned the subject back to the substance of
the negotiations, requesting from the City counteroffers to SEIU’s May 10 proposals. Hughes
refused, insisting that SEIU first respond to all of the proposals of the City, particularly the
wage freeze proposal.
Hughes testified that the City was being open-minded about solving the City’s
economic crisis and not seeking to engage in positional bargaining. Hughes stated the City
needed a response to the balance of the City’s proposals before he could possibly get some
authority from the City Council at the next closed session. Hughes concluded that despite
Templeton’s show of good faith, SEIU was engaging in stall tactics. He also conceded that
SEIU had been “telegraphing” that it was opposed to the merit freeze, but claimed the need to
9 At the hearing, Hughes claimed that because economic issues take time, they will be
among the first things put on the table.
14

see the union’s official position. Hughes testified that it was important to know SEIU’s
position on whether the merit pay freeze would extend beyond July 1. Despite disappointment
with evasiveness on Osayande’s part, Hughes interpreted Templeton’s comments to mean that
SEIU was rejecting the balance of the City’s proposal.
Hughes also testified that his failure to accept or reject SEIU’s proposal on section 8.1
was because he did not feel it addressed the union’s real needs. Osayande testified that she
believed the City was “flipping the script” on the union. In response to the City’s harping on
the structural deficit, SEIU cited its past contributions to the deficit through the previous merit
wage freeze and a one percent increase in pension contributions. The bargaining notes indicate
at a point late in the session when the parties were disputing who owed whom a response,
Hughes asserted that SEIU needed to go back to its members to finalize its workweek proposal.
Osayande responded that this was condescending. The meeting ended after about two hours.
If there was any lack of clarity as to SEIU’s position during the meeting, Templeton
removed it in a letter the following day, stating that the union was not agreeing to extend the
wage freeze. In response to Templeton’s complaint about the City’s refusal to respond to the
union’s workweek proposal, Hughes testified that SEIU’s non-economic proposal on
workweek was “in no way, shape, or form connected to trying to tackle” the City’s proposals.
June 6 Meeting
Templeton opened the meeting expressing concern about a news report announcing the
City Council’s adoption of the 2011-2012 budget during the week of May 23 that included all
of the concessions sought in the SEIU negotiations. 	Hughes responded that the budget was
only an estimate. At the hearing, Hughes testified that he had never encountered an employer
in his experience delaying adoption of a budget pending the outcome of negotiations.
15

________________________
SEIU next requested a calculation of the amount the City would save with the
continued merit pay freeze. Hughes responded that the information was simply a cost that
fluctuated from year to year; its total could not be calculated because it would require an
examination of individual payroll records. Hughes admitted lacking knowledge about the
City’s payroll system.
Templeton also stated the union’s need to know the dollar figure of savings required by
the City in order to fashion alternative savings measures and to demonstrate that the unit’s
concessions were commensurate with concessions from other employees. Hughes testified that
no answer was required on this because “the merit pay was a cost issue, not a savings issue.”
He is also quoted in the bargaining notes as stating the City was “going on last year’s.”
At another point, he asked if the City produced the numbers of each unit would it be helpful to
SEIU in selling its proposals to the membership, to which Templeton answered yes. Hughes is
quoted as stating Phelps would “do [the] math.”
This exchange was followed by SEIU’s presentation of a comprehensive proposal on
non-economic issues. The proposal called for (1) a second-tier retirement plan for new hires,
(2) a statement of policy regarding sick leave addressing disciplinary action for excessive
intermittent use of sick leave, (3) adding $150 to the uniform compensation section to cover
work boots, (4) elimination of two of 14 listed causes for disciplinary action, (5) substitution of
the grievance procedure for the existing appeal process to challenge disciplinary action, and (6)
changes to the grievance procedure. Some exchanges occurred. Hughes asked a question
about Skelly hearings,10 and later explained the law on the subject.
10 Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194.
16

________________________
SEIU also indicated it was working on a proposal for an alternative work schedule
based on nine days of eight hours per day that would save the City an amount equal to the
requested concessions, or roughly “four percent.”11 Hughes testified that he appreciated
Hudson bringing this idea forward, in contrast to Osayande’s rigid stance, because it reflected
an interest-based approach. However, the bargaining notes contradict him, quoting Hughes as
responding by “explaining the City’s plan.” SEIU then asked for the amount of savings for
unrepresented employees, and repeated its interest in a three-year term. Hughes rejected the
proposal, citing CalPERS as the “big issue.” When Hudson stated that he did not understand,
Hughes responded, telling SEIU to “make a proposal” or a “what if” proposal (i.e., a
“supposal”).
Immediately after this, Hughes asked what would occur if the parties were not done by
July 1, but were still bargaining. Osayande asserted SEIU’s position was that the merit wage
freeze would sunset. Hughes responded by demanding a side letter be signed to continue the
freeze, and that without one, the City would be providing its last, best, and final offer (LFBO)
at the next bargaining session.12 Templeton replied that SEIU would “get back to him.”
Hughes then asked why there was a need to get back and expressed disappointment with the
union for using the sunset date as leverage. Templeton replied that the City was not providing
a dollar savings target figure. Hughes responded that the City needed no cost increases and
11 The record does not indicate clearly from what gross figure four percent is calculated,
but it is likely total unit compensation.
12 Hughes alternatively testified that he knew the merit freeze would sunset and was
annoyed that Osayande, in contrast to Templeton, failed to give him a straight answer on the
point. He believed it would be customary in negotiations for the status quo to continue for the
duration of the negotiations regardless of the language involved here.
17

additional concessions from SEIU. At the close of the meeting, the City agreed to transmit the
amount of dollar savings sought from the SEIU unit. This meeting also lasted about two hours.
Later the same day Osayande emailed Hughes. Anticipating the next session on
June 15, Osayande stated: “The parties met today and agreed to continue working on complete
proposal packages that include economics. . . . We will submit additional proposals and or
‘suppose-als” showing various scenario packages that can be used as examples to the employer
or alternative ways of addressing fiscal targets.” She reminded Hughes of the information
sought by SEIU.
Hughes emailed Osayande a response that included an estimate of $170,000 for the
savings achieved by extending the merit pay freeze, $32,902 for the increased pension
contribution, and a furlough option (without a dollar figure) in case the City needed additional
savings. Hughes indicated that Phelps would be providing the estimated savings from the
merit pay freeze for unrepresented employees. In regard to Templeton’s statement that SEIU
would get back to the City on extending the merit pay freeze, Hughes repeated the City’s
intention to submit its LFBO at the next meeting if no extension was obtained.
Schaffner testified that the lack of agreement on the merit pay freeze ending on July 1
was an imperative for the City Council because of “pretty significant” and “immediate”
financial impacts. She stated that City Council did not have “comfort in continuing to
negotiate, unless the parties were pretty close;” adding, “the City was feeling strongly that they
needed to resolve their fiscal planning issues as well before they got into another fiscal year.”
Schaffner understood that the City Council would adopt a budget in June with the savings from
the unit as proposed and anticipated the need to amend the adopted budget if it did not achieve
those savings in the negotiations.
18

On June 14, the City team met with the City Council. Hughes received updated
authority as reflected in the City’s LBFO that he would present at the June 15 session.
June 15 Meeting
According to the bargaining notes, Templeton opened the meeting announcing a plan to
lay out the union’s 9/8 economic proposal. He asked the City for a counter. Hughes
responded with the estimated savings from the merit pay freeze for unrepresented employees
($909,067).
SEIU then presented an 11-page package proposal described as a counterproposal. The
proposals reiterated the intermittent sick leave policy reform, boot allowance, removal of two
grounds for discipline, and substitution of the grievance procedure for the appeal procedure for
disciplinary actions. SEIU countered the City’s two-percent-at-60 formula for the second tier
with 2.7 percent at 55 with the employees paying the employee contribution, up to a maximum
of eight percent. The main economic proposal included a nine-day work period at eight hours
per day, with every other Friday off, for a total of 26 days off, or the equivalent of a four
percent savings. SEIU and the City would also split increases to health insurance premiums.
The term of the MOU was three years.
According to the bargaining notes, Hughes asked short, single questions about the
health insurance premium split, the three-year term, the second tier plan, and the sick leave
policy. After hearing SEIU’s reason for a three-year term, Hughes responded that the City
would want a “simple reopener.” Osayande stated it would only be for the merit increases.
The City rejected the splitting of health care increases. Hughes testified such a proposal could
not be put in the MOU because medical costs were uncertain, as were merit increases.
19

________________________
Hughes expressed disappointment with SEIU’s lack of movement, and the City
caucused. When the City returned, Hughes told SEIU that he appreciated the union’s attempt,
but the parties had a “fundamental gap” over the scheduling issue and the City’s need for
weekend coverage. He stated that the “hardest piece” was the work schedule, not economics.
The City would adhere to the community’s desire for seven-day service at the parks.
After the caucus, the parties engaged in what appears to have been the longest single
discussion of a subject in the negotiations, and it concerned the work schedule issue. Schaffner
contended the City had already considered the union’s input, and conveyed that the City would
stand behind its managerial prerogative over the scheduling of work. Later, after a challenge
by Templeton, Schaffner responded that the City’s bargaining team was not management and
not privy as to why the City had not resolved the schedule issue earlier. This discussion
continued until the noon break. Osayande is quoted as stating that the work schedule issue was
not how many days of the weekend services are provided, but what the schedule required of
the employees. The City’s counterproposal on section 8.1 was to reaffirm management’s right
to unilaterally change the seasonal work schedule on a yearly basis.13
Hughes’s testimony regarding the most critical bargaining session was both internally
inconsistent and at odds with the notes. Hughes testified he was intent on wrapping up the
negotiations on June 15. This was his plan despite his expressed openness to the 9/8 proposal
and recognition that SEIU was struggling to cost out the offsetting savings of an extended
merit pay freeze, which the City was not able to calculate for the union. Hughes added that the
13 In its post-hearing brief, the City argued that the City team determined that what had
been an economics-driven negotiations was no longer given the emergence of the issue of work
schedules and that Hughes “confirmed” this with SEIU. In support of that point, the City cited
Hughes’s testimony and the bargaining notes, which only confirm that it was the one subject
around in which the City entertained extended discussion at the table.
20

9/8 proposal was a “considerable” one that needed to be digested. He wanted a caucus because
he did not want to ask any stupid questions about the proposal, that he was “a bit at sea with
the idea” and the possible history of alternative work schedules raised by Hudson. 	At this
point, Hughes was willing to assume that SEIU’s calculation of the 9/8 proposal’s savings was
reliable. The feedback Hughes received in the caucus was that there were probably going to be
operational “speed bumps” with implementation. He testified:
I just explained that I was having some sense that there could be
some operational challenges with that. I don’t know that I was
hyper-specific, because, again, I’m just learning about this for the
first time right then and there, and any comments I would have
made were something that one of my bargaining teams members
suggested to me may be an issue, but I had a little more
homework to do.
Hughes’s testimony of the City’s good faith approach contradicts the weight of evidence as to
the City’s rigid objection to negotiating schedule changes and insistence on SEIU accepting the
City’s particular economic proposals.
According to the bargaining notes, just after the mid-day break, Hughes presented
counteroffers to SEIU on the non-economic issues. The City agreed to strike out existing
language permitting the City to require a medical provider’s verification of inability to perform
assigned duties. The City agreed to SEIU’s proposal to include protections against disciplinary
action against intermittent use of sick leave. The City accepted SEIU’s requirement of
advance notice of suspected abuse, SEIU’s definition of excessive intermittent use, the
requirement for a provider’s verification for a six-month period, and the ability of the
supervisor to place an employee on probation. It added the supervisor’s right to extend the
probationary period following disciplinary action.
21

The City rejected the boot allowance, citing the need for an offset. It also rejected the
removal of the language on appeals of disciplinary actions; the City would agree to add
language stating it would follow the law, while stating also that appeals of disciplinary action
having no monetary impact were not required by law. Otherwise, the City had no interest in
the proposal.
The City rejected SEIU’s proposal on changes to language of the grievance procedure
and the union’s proposal to delete the language stating that a written reprimand would be
placed in the employee’s personnel file. Osayande recited a story about an alleged abuse of the
disciplinary process. Hughes said he heard what she was saying, that it sounded like a big
issue, but the City had no interest in removing the language from the MOU. Hughes again
resorted to explaining the law. In response to Osayande’s complaint about low morale under
McNamara’s management style, Hughes is quoted as responding that no words could fix such a
problem in the MOU; it was a classic issue in labor negotiations.
At approximately 1:00 p.m., as the parties were discussing the grievance procedure, the
City identified issues it had: further meeting dates and the extension of the merit pay freeze
while the parties continued negotiations. Osayande responded that the membership agreed to
the extension.
Next, Templeton stated that SEIU would provide the City its 9/8 proposal in writing.
Hughes’s next statement was that the City rejects a three-year term. Immediately after that,
Hughes presented the City’s LBFO. The only concession made by the City was the removal of
the second-tier retirement plan, which Hughes acknowledged would save the City nothing in
the first year due to the ongoing hiring freeze. Hughes testified that he had been instructed to
22

present the LBFO at this meeting and to clearly convey to SEIU that it was the City’s LBFO.
Hughes believed it would be something SEIU could sell to its membership.
Around 1:55 p.m., shortly before the meeting ended, Hughes raised the issue of the side
letter extending the merit pay freeze and noted his need to consult with the City Council
regarding that issue and whether to arrange further bargaining sessions. He again objected to
the three-year term, stating the need for a “broad” reopener. Hughes testified that he wanted
the side letter extension in writing because he felt somewhat snake-bitten by Osayande and
Templeton. He denied declaring the parties were at impasse, conceding only that they could be
headed there.
The next meeting was scheduled for June 29. SEIU believed the meeting was firmly
set. The City maintained it was tentative only. Hughes testified:
Because I didn’t know if we were going to be at an impasse at
that point, and, if so, how that was going to be handled. You
know, I’d been given some very clear instructions from my client.
I followed through with them. At the meeting on the 15th, I
conveyed a last, best, and final. The union was giving me
something very different than that, and I needed to get direction
from my client. The direction may or may not have left room for
further bargaining.
The bargaining notes confirm that at the end of the meeting, just before 1:55 p.m., Hughes
stated he needed to consult with the City Council regarding the side letter and more meeting
dates.
Just after 1:55 p.m., SEIU promised a package proposal would be delivered the next
day. The meeting lasted about four hours.
On June 16, Osayande emailed SEIU’s comprehensive package proposal and stated,
“See you on June 29, 2011.” SEIU accepted the City’s withdrawal of the second tier plan.
SEIU countered the City’s economic package with the following offers: (1) the 9/8 schedule,
23

________________________
with a return to the schedules prior to the May 2011 schedule change;14 (2) a 50 percent
sharing of the increase for the Kaiser medical plan and the preferred provider optional plan
premiums, respectively;15 (3) a one year continuation of the merit pay freeze; and (4) a two
year term, expiring June 30, 2013. SEIU restated its original non-economic proposals,
including the sick leave language, boot allowance, and revisions to the disciplinary and
grievance procedure articles.
The same day, the City provided SEIU with language to sign that would extend the
merit freeze until the parties completed negotiations and requested an executed copy by
June 20. However, the City’s proposal contained language not discussed by the parties,
namely, that the freeze would be suspended by agreement to an MOU or the City’s “taking
final action” to resolve an impasse. Further, if SEIU sought any legal relief against the
implementation of a “subsequently imposed MOU, the freeze would extend until a final
resolution of the legal proceedings.” The City team also emailed a statement to the SEIU team
that the City team would present the package proposal to the City Council in closed session to
let the council determine if there would be authorization to revise the LBFO, or ascertainment
of room for further negotiations.
The City Council met on Saturday, June 18. The council rejected SEIU’s offer. It
instructed the City team to determine if SEIU would accept the City’s LBFO, and if not,
determine whether the parties were at impasse. Hughes testified that for the City the two “big
14 The prior schedule included one weekend crew working Sunday through Thursday,
and the other working Tuesday through Saturday, with either an alternating Tuesday or
Thursday off, every other week depending on the crew.
15 The City estimated projected increases of 10 and 14 percent for the two plans,
respectively.
24

areas of dispute” were “money and work schedule.” The City Council also scheduled June 28
as the time for adoption of a tentative agreement or taking “final action” regarding the impasse.
The City provided no evidence that the council was informed of SEIU’s willingness to accept
the interim pay freeze. Hughes testified that he concluded SEIU’s June 16 proposal did not
meet the City’s cost savings needs, but he could not remember why it failed to do so. The
City’s reaction to the 9/8 schedule was that it was “real comfortable with what [it] had,” did
not want to make a change, and “there was a concern about, financially, how this would shake
out for the city.”
On June 20, Schaffner emailed SEIU reporting on the June 18 meeting and warned that
the City needed to hear whether SEIU accepted the City’s LBFO or “whether the parties were
at impasse.” If no answer was received by the close of business June 23, the City would “take
that as a rejection.” Finally, SEIU was advised that if the City did not receive acceptance of
the City’s LBFO by June, the City would take “final action” regarding the impasse.
On June 22, Templeton responded with an email stating SEIU’s intention to continue
bargaining, stating his belief that an agreement was possible. He implored the City to be more
specific about the “specific fiscal targets” it sought to achieve. Schaffner emailed a response,
reciting the bargaining history in the City’s view and repeating that the City Council had
concluded that no further bargaining should occur absent acceptance of the City’s LBFO.
Osayande replied with an email that recited the bargaining history from SEIU’s perspective
view. 	She ended by stating:
We put forth our proposal verbally and in writing and (sic) June
15, and agreed to come back to the table on June 29. 	Now the
City is pushing to impasse when we have not finished bargaining.
WE (sic) do not bargain at the Council meetings or in their
chambers, that is why you and Jack were charged with being the
negotiators so that we could do just that at the table.
25

________________________
Schaffner ended the June 22 email exchange stating “we disagree with your representation of
the history of these negotiations.”
In a separate June 22 email, Hughes responded to Templeton stating three points: (1)
despite SEIU’s belated, but sincere effort to meet the City’s financial needs, the City rejected
the proposal and the parties could only avoid impasse if SEIU accepted the City’s LBFO, (2)
the scheduling issues had been bargained for six months and were intractable, (3) the June 29
date was a placeholder that was rendered moot by the City’s reiteration of its LBFO. Hughes
offered June 24 as a meeting date for “further discussion” if it might break the impasse. SEIU
did not accept the invitation.
On June 23, at 4:56 p.m., Templeton transmitted the executed merit pay freeze
extension, without the language on the indefinite extension in case of legal proceedings. The
City did not sign the agreement because it considered the extension a moot issue given SEIU’s
failure to accept the City’s LBFO.16 Schaffner testified the extension was only of value if there
was a purpose in continuing negotiations, and the City viewed the parties as too far apart.
June 28 City Council Meeting
The first item on the City Council’s June 28 meeting agenda was a closed session to
discuss the SEIU negotiations. A resolution approving the unilateral implementation of the
City’s LBFO was listed under new business with a staff recommendation to adopt. Also listed
16 On June 23, Osayande emailed the City stating that the roll-up costs had not been
provided and submitting additional information requests for the total, average and median
wages paid employees budgeted for 2010-2011, and the actuals, year to date. Schaffner stated
the roll-up costs had already been provided and the City was working on the remainder of the
request. Schaffner responded with a spreadsheet containing budgeted and year-to-date wage
and fringe benefit figures for the unit’s employees. Osayande claimed she did not receive the
spreadsheet. According to Schaffner, Osayande was reluctant to accept it when later she
personally offered to her.
26

________________________
under new business was a resolution pertaining to unrepresented employees approving
suspension of the merit pay raises, an increase in the CalPERS employee contribution, and
adoption of unpaid furlough days.
The staff recommendation on the SEIU negotiations contained the following summary:
The Union’s response to the “best and final offer” made by the
City was a proposal and a counter proposal along with a
statement that they do not believe the parties are at an impasse.
In light of the critical need for timely action on this matter, the
City Council met in Closed Session on Saturday, June 18, 2011 to
review the union’s proposal and [counterproposal]. After these
extended and extensive negotiations and exchanges, however, the
City and the Union remain far apart on core fiscal matters.
Furthermore, the parties are diametrically opposed on the most
important non-financial issue with no meaningful movement by
either party throughout the negotiation[s]. The City considers the
negotiations to be at impasse and has informed the Union of this
conclusion.
No description of the major “non-financial” issue was provided in the text. The staff
memorandum stated that implementation was recommended because of “the need to timely
address the 2011-2012 deficit” and because SEIU had not returned “a signed version of a
promised stopgap Amendment . . . which might have allowed the parties to continue
negotiations.”17 The memorandum added that if SEIU agreed to the LBFO prior to the City
Council meeting, the council could adopt an alternative resolution reflecting that agreement.
For the first time, the Council officially announced the parties were at impasse.
Speakers were permitted during the City Council meeting. Hughes spoke first. He
began: “[T]his is as clear an impasse in a labor negotiation process as I’ve run into in 15 years
of negotiating labor contracts.” Hughes identified scheduling as the principal issue dividing
17 Although not specifically asked about the agreement, Hughes volunteered the City
had not received one that fully protected the City. He did not deny receipt of the signed
agreement sent by Templeton.
27

the parties and asserted that “throughout the balance of the bargaining process I’ve been
involved with, I have seen no significant movement of any kind on either party’s part.” He
claimed that the City made its “best effort to resolve it” at the June 15 session. Hughes noted
the financial terms were identical to those of the unrepresented employees.
The next speaker asked why the City rejected the union’s one year merit freeze
extension. Hughes responded that as stated earlier, “[F]inances are not so much the primary
issue.” Another speaker asked why the 9/8 schedule was rejected. Hughes answered that
SEIU demanded schedules so employees could work Monday through Friday, followed by
Monday through Thursday. Osayande responded that “working the weekends was not the
issue;” it was requiring 10 consecutive days. She believed the parties were not at impasse and
that there was “plenty of room for [the parties] to work out their differences and the scheduling
issue.” Another speaker asked, “Is it really that difficult to get together and figure out a
schedule?” Hughes responded that the City had thoroughly examined the issue at the
bargaining table. Hudson then spoke. He explained that with the medical premium cost split
proposal, SEIU was offering more financially than was demanded by the City, and in addition
the union offered a “structural change” on schedules: “We said look it, we’ll work Tuesday
through Saturday, Sunday through Thursday . . . but let us have one of the days of the weekend
off.” Hughes responded:
[W]hat’s remarkable to me about San Ramon is it’s been striving
to minimize the impact of our current economy on the workforce
to a greater extent than I believe any other client that I have at
this time. And one of the strategies for that is a shorter term labor
agreement as opposed to a longer term agreement.
Hughes described SEIU as offering some “additional inducements” at the front end to get a
longer term. The City was uncomfortable with a longer term due to continuing downside risk,
28

________________________
and consequently sought a one year deal that would “mitigate the impact on the employees as
much as possible.”
After further comments, the Vice Mayor spoke, and despite sympathy over the
scheduling issue, noted the million military reservists who work weekends. He concluded the
current schedule was “very doable.” The Mayor followed: “We’re not asking anything from
you that we’re not asking from all our employees. No more, no less.” He added that the City
had looked very closely at SEIU’s June 15 counteroffer: “[U]nfortunately, the Union’s offer
does not meet our fiscal needs and actually runs contrary to . . . our basic operational needs at
this time. And, that we are just too far apart to expect to resolve our differences in . . . any
further discussion at this point.”
Following these comments, the City implemented the terms of its LBFO. The
implementation included the merit pay freeze, up to 12 unpaid furlough days, language
specifically legitimizing the back-to-back workweek scheduling, the one percent increase in
employee retirement contributions, and the one year term with unlimited reopeners for the
City.18 It implemented the identical economic terms for the unrepresented at the same meeting.
On June 29, SEIU arrived for bargaining, but the City did not appear. At 1:00 p.m.,
Osayande emailed Hughes and Schaffner asking where the meeting would take place. Hughes
responded that he was not prepared to bargain over the “2012-2013” successor agreement – the
implication being he had just concluded the 2011-2012 negotiations with SEIU.
18 Though the resolution states in the “whereas” clauses the intention to implement five
furlough days (the same as for unrepresented), the resolution itself adopts the attached City
LBFO, which authorizes 12 furlough days.
29

By letter dated June 30, Osayande restated SEIU’s position that the parties were not at
impasse. She announced a plan to present “substantial movement” in regard to the 9/8
schedule, the retirement plan, furloughs, and term.
By letter dated July 1, Hughes restated the City’s position that negotiations were closed,
but offered to meet “in the interests of good labor relations.”
By letter dated July 7, Osayande transmitted the same message contained in her June 30
letter.
The parties met on July 8. Hughes asked the purpose of the meeting, adding that the
“ball was in SEIU’s court.” SEIU presented a package proposal with a one year term. SEIU
withdrew the 50 percent split on health insurance premium increases, the 9/8 schedule, the
$150 boot allowance, the removal of two disciplinary causes, the right to grieve discipline, and
two other language changes to the grievance procedure. SEIU counter-proposed to accept (1)
the merit pay freeze through June 30, 2012, (2) up to five furlough days in the 2011-2012 fiscal
year, and (3) the City’s new retirement plan and employee contribution. SEIU maintained its
proposal on a minor language change to the grievance procedure proposed earlier and adopted
in the City’s implementation. SEIU retained its proposal for an intermittent sick leave abuse
policy, but deleted the City’s amendment stating that “[e]mployees may not use sick leave
unless they are truly sick or they have another lawful reason for using sick leave.” SEIU
30

________________________
proposed overtime if the City scheduled weekend work following a regular five day workweek,
dropping its opposition to 10 day scheduling.19
Hughes testified that he “suspected” that the package did not constitute substantial
movement and “wasn’t going anywhere” given the instructions of his principals. He
interpreted the work schedule proposal as a means to block weekend work because it was
subject to “approval” by SEIU. His “take away” from the meeting was a “real passion” by the
employees on the “operational issue,” and because employees were unhappy and impasse was
not any better for the City than the employees, he did believe the City should consider it
further. Since he would not be available for the next few weeks due to personal commitments,
he expected the City staff would follow up. At a later point, he stated to SEIU that he
understood the problem about working 10 days straight, was not sure it was the right thing to
do ultimately, and that the City was “absolutely committed to giving [the 10 day work period]
a shot” during a one year trial, and revisiting the issue thereafter.
According to the bargaining notes, SEIU also proposed that the City could avoid the
overtime payment by scheduling a five-day week over the weekend. SEIU told the City it was
leaving full discretion to the City how to schedule coverage over the weekend and that it would
assist in that scheduling should the City encounter difficulties.
After further questions Hughes and attempted reassurances by Templeton concerning
the scheduling issue, Hughes made a comment about impasse in connection with furloughs,
19 The language carried over the definition of regular hours, with an amendment in the
italics: “The regular hours for unit employees shall be five (5) consecutive shifts of seven and
one-half [7.5] work hours in a seven (7) day work period with 2 consecutive days of rest
[preceding] the five (5) DAY SHIFT UNLESS EMERGENCY WORK AND (OVERTIME) OR
SCHEDUED OVERTIME HAS BEEN APPRPOVED BY ALL PARTIES.” (Italicized for
emphasis.)
31

followed by a Templeton question whether there was possibility for movement. Hughes
answered that SEIU could agree to the City’s LBFO so the parties could declare victory, or he
would “pick up his marbles and go home.” Hughes testified that this was one of the “little
sayings” or “colloquialisms” he uses in bargaining. He added that he would have “go home
and figure out another way to go at this.”
Near the end of the meeting, Osayande pointed out that despite the City’s insistence on
the importance of scheduling and SEIU’s concession of managerial prerogative on that issue,
the City never presented a proposal to SEIU on the subject. Hughes responded that SEIU was
claiming the City was “wrong,” whereas the City’s position was that the contract allowed the
current schedule. Immediately thereafter, Hughes declared, “We’re done.” At the end of the
meeting, Southwick asked, “What is the issue?” Hughes responded, “Look at the LBFO. It is
clear.”
Schaffner testified that she agreed with Hughes’s conclusion that the negotiations had
been completed as of June 28, but whether impasse could be broken by substantial movement
was not a subject about which she had any competence. She stated: “My impression was, if
there was substantial movement, there might be an obligation to reopen, but it was not an area I
felt like I knew that that looked like.” There was no evidence the City presented SEIU’s
revised offer to the City Council.
July, August, and September Meetings
SEIU proposed, and the City agreed, to meet with new representatives from SEIU,
ostensibly in the context of attempting to resolve the underlying unfair practice charge in this
case and the unilateral change charge previously filed. However, Osayande arranged the
meeting with Schaffner and described the subject of the meeting as “scheduling and [the]
32

imposition matter.” SEIU Political Organizer Ariana Casanova (Casanova) and Field Director
Leah Berlanga replaced Osayande and Templeton at a July 19 meeting. As a result of a
follow-up meeting on July 28, the City agreed to include McNamara at a subsequent meeting.
The parties met on August 23 and August 30, and focused on the scheduling matter. On
August 29, McNamara issued a memorandum on scheduling. Teams would be assigned for
Thursday through Sunday duty for a longer work day for 13 week periods, but with fewer staff
on each of the teams. At the August 30 meeting, SEIU proposed that the employees be given
five-day schedules, but with one of the weekend days scheduled off. SEIU also asked the City
to investigate the availability of employees who would volunteer for weekend coverage. This
proposal pertained to the 2012 summer season. McNamara insisted on teams that worked both
weekend days. 	For her, the issues were that employees on Saturday were not sufficiently
motivated to complete their share of the work on that day and there would be work which
employees on the next shift might not know of.
At a September 7 meeting, Hudson reported there were no employees volunteering to
take full weekend coverage, and he presented an alternative, rotating schedule where one team
would work both weekend days. SEIU confirmed that the proposal applied to 2012. Hughes
responded that the City was not interested in an agreement for 2012 at that time.
SEIU then attempted to see if the parties could reach agreement on an MOU by
revisiting the other issues in the 2011 negotiations. It went through the City’s last offer to
attempt obtain tentative agreements, without success. Hughes suggested that it might be
possible to achieve something if the scheduling issue was set aside, or if the scheduling issue
was resolved. The City explained SEIU’s language could be taken to the City Council. After a
break, the parties engaged in further discussions about the schedule, without success. SEIU
33

________________________
passed a proposal that would retain the MOU language in 8.1, but add a requirement that the
parties “meet in February to discuss the seasonal schedule.” The City passed a proposal stating
that the parties would discuss the seasonal schedule in February, but that the City will continue
its practice of unilaterally adjusting schedules on a day-to-day basis or to establish work-teams
as needed. Hughes informed SEIU that he had not expected language on section 8.1 and that
he had exhausted all of his authority at the table on that provision. Hughes agreed to take
SEIU’s section 8.1 language to the City Council on September 13, 2011, along with a cap of
five furlough days, and removal of the City reopener language.
On September 13, 2011, the City Council rejected SEIU’s request to accept its latest
proposal.
On November 8, 2011, Osayande emailed Schaffner a demand to return to the
bargaining table over the imposed terms in light of “changed circumstances.” This was based
on information SEIU received indicating that the City’s “finances are in better shape than
previously expected.” By letter dated November 29, Osayande repeated her demand and
included information requests on budget matters. Phelps responded on November 15, stating
that the parties were still at impasse, while maintaining there was only slight improvement in
the City’s financial position as of June 30, 2011.20
City’s Impasse Procedures
The City’s employer-employee relations policy (EERP) contains impasse procedure
provisions. Impasse is defined as occurring when “the representatives of the City and a
Recognized Employee Organization have reached a point in their meeting and conferring in
20 Eventually, many months later, the parties negotiated a successor MOU effective July
1, 2012.
34

good faith where their differences on matters to be included in a Memorandum of
Understanding, and concerning which they are required to meet and confer, remain so
substantial and prolonged that further meeting and conferring would be futile.” Section 16
(“Initiation of Impasse Procedures”) provides that “either party may initiate the impasse
procedure” by giving the other party a written request for an impasse proceeding together with
a statement of its position on all issues. A meeting so scheduled will conduct a “review of the
position (sic) of the parties in a final effort to reach agreement” and failing that, a discussion of
“arrangements for the utilization” of the prescribed “impasse procedures.” Section 17
(“Impasse Procedures”) provides that the parties will proceed to mediation if they agree to
submit to mediation, and failing that, the parties may agree to factfinding. If the parties agree
to neither procedure, the City Council is authorized to take “such action regarding the impasse”
it “in its discretion deems appropriate as in the public interest.” Any legislative action shall be
“final and binding.” The City made no request to participate in impasse procedures to resolve
the 2011 bargaining.
ISSUES
1. 	Did the City fail to meet and confer in good faith by prematurely declaring that
the parties were at impasse?
2. 	Did the City unlawfully implement a memorandum of understanding?
3. 	Did the City refuse to engage in “changed circumstances” bargaining?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Failing To Bargain In Good Faith to Impasse
MMBA section 3505 requires public agencies and recognized employee organizations
to meet and confer in good faith over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
35

employment. In Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission v. Superior Court (1978)
23 Cal.3d 55, 61-62, the court stated:
Thus a public agency must meet with employee representatives
(1) promptly on request; (2) personally; (3) for a reasonable
period of time; (4) to exchange information freely; and (5) to try
to agree on matters within the scope of representation. Though
the process is not binding, it requires that the parties seriously
“attempt to resolve differences and reach a common ground.”
[Citation.] The public agency must fully consider union
presentations; it is not at liberty to grant only a perfunctory
review of written suggestions submitted by a union.
If the parties engage in good faith bargaining, yet reach a point where further
discussions would be fruitless, and prospects for reaching agreement have been exhausted, a
bona fide impasse occurs. Thereupon, the parties must proceed to the impasse resolution
procedures; and failing resolution there, the employer may unilaterally implement terms and
conditions reasonably comprehended within its LBFO. (Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB
Decision No. 291, pp. 33-38; City & County of San Francisco (2009) PERB Decision No.
2041-M, p. 40.) A bona fide impasse declared by the employer assumes it has bargained in
good faith. (County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M [an employer’s premature
imposition of its LBFO, prior to reaching impasse and exhausting impasse resolution procedures,
if they exist, is an illegal unilateral change]; Temple City Unified School District (1990) PERB
Decision No. 841, pp. 11-12.)
Absent a conflict with the fundamental purposes of the MMBA, the City’s definition of
impasse in its employee relations ordinance is applicable to the case at bar. (See County of
Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M, p. 12.) The City’s definition of impasse (i.e.,
the differences “remain so substantial and prolonged that further meeting and conferring would
be futile”) is consistent with PERB’s definition described above as the point where prospects
36

for agreement have been exhausted. In determining the existence of impasse, PERB has
focused on a number of objective factors, including the number and length of negotiation
sessions, the extent to which the parties have made and discussed counterproposals to each
other, the number of tentative agreements, and the number of unresolved issues. (Id. at p. 14.)
In evaluating claims that a party has prematurely declared impasse, PERB analyzes the
totality of the bargaining conduct leading up to the impasse declaration. (Kings In-Home
Supportive Services Public Authority (2009) PERB Decision No. 2009-M.) “Good faith”
requires “a genuine desire to reach agreement,” rather than merely going through the motions
of negotiations. (Id.; see also Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Decision No. 291, p. 35
[face-to-face bargaining allowing for the exploration of new proposals which may provide
avenues to resolve differences is encouraged].) Under this test, PERB determines whether the
charged party’s conduct as a whole “indicates an intent to subvert the negotiating process or is
merely a legitimate position adamantly maintained.” (Oakland Unified School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 275.) When the employer objects on grounds of negotiability “[t]he
obligation to negotiate includes the obligation to express one’s opposition in sufficient detail to
permit the negotiating process to proceed on the basis of mutual understanding.” (Jefferson
School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 133, p. 11.)
Absent evidence of bad faith bargaining, discussion of proposals and review of
outstanding differences over five final bargaining sessions, with only minor movement to
bridge substantial differences on economic issues and important non-economic issues has led
to a finding of bona fide impasse. (Regents of the University of California (1985) PERB
Decision No. 520-H.) Continued movement on minor issues will not prevent a finding of
impasse if the parties remain deadlocked on one or more major issues. (California State
37

University (19981) PERB Decision No. 799-H.) On the other hand, where the parties continue
to make economic concessions and display movement, an abrupt declaration of impasse that
denies one party an opportunity to respond the other’s final offer has been found to be
premature. (Kings In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority, supra, PERB Decision No.
2009-M; see also County of Riverside, supra, PERB Decision No. 2360-M [contemporaneous
movement and narrowing of issues in context of time pressure for completion of negotiations,
coupled with insubstantial justification for impasse declaration].) A hurried attempt to present
an LBFO with little discussion when the parties differed on only one economic subject,
prompting a counterproposal and request for additional sessions from the other party, yet
produced no further face-to-face meetings, were facts leading to a finding of a premature
declaration of impasse. (City of Selma (2014) PERB Decision No. 2380-M.) A lack of bona
fide impasse was found in City of Selma despite the union’s slowness in presenting an
economic proposal in the context of concessionary bargaining, particularly in light of evidence
of the employer’s intention to meet an externally imposed deadline for negotiations that
coincided with the unilateral imposition as to another union concurrently involved in
bargaining.
Based on the guidance set forth above, it must be concluded that the City prematurely
declared impasse and failed to exhibit good faith in the bargaining leading up to the June 6
meeting, when it abruptly announced its intention to produce its LBFO absent SEIU’s
agreement to a side letter extending the merit pay freeze, and the June 15 meeting, when, after
obtaining “updated authority” from the City Council, the City presented its LBFO that included
a single concession, the removal of the two-tiered retirement plan, which would save the City
no money during the term of the imposed MOU due to the hiring freeze. The day after the
38

June 15 meeting, SEIU provided an executed side letter extending the merit pay freeze for the
duration of bargaining, which the City determined was moot because the distance between the
parties was too great. Throughout this period, only SEIU demonstrated real and significant
movement. Then, despite SEIU having also submitted a comprehensive new proposal on
June 16 that included the one year merit wage freeze sought by the City, cost-sharing of the
anticipated increases in health premiums, and wage concessions based on working 26 fewer
days in the year through the 9/8 schedule, the City refused to meet at the “tentatively”
scheduled June 29 meeting because SEIU had refused to accept the City’s LBFO. Despite this
clear movement on the key issues, the City’s lead negotiator described the impasse to his
principals as one of the “clearest” he had ever witnessed in his career, while incorrectly
representing that there had been “no significant movement of any kind on either party’s part.”
The City’s resolution states the “critical need for timely action,” but the record offers no
explanation as to what compelled such urgency. Schaffner cited the lack of a merit pay raise
freeze as the City Council’s imperative, but the increases were not earned until the employee’s
anniversary date, and SEIU had offered an interim extension. Taken as a whole, the sequence
and evolution of bargaining in this case is remarkably close to what transpired in City of Selma,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2380-M, where the employer desired to implement concession
terms of uniform application to separate units coinciding with the budget process.
SEIU has demonstrated a lack of good faith negotiating on the City’s part. The signs of
the City’s lack of intent to genuinely attempt to resolve differences surfaced in January when
the City made the PowerPoint presentation to all miscellaneous employees, announcing the
39

________________________
City’s intent to seek across-the-board concessions.21 (General Electric Co. (1964) 150 NLRB
192, 194.) Moniz communicated a goal to the employees of July 1, 2011, for the
implementation. Rogers’s comment to Osayande about the difference between San Ramon and
Oakland coupled with his comment in connection with the City’s lack of interest in ground
rules legitimately prompted Hudson’s comment suspecting a “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude on
the City’s part. When the early meetings suggested resistance from SEIU, the City retained
Hughes.
At his first session on April 29, Hughes asserted that the seasonal work schedule was
financially driven, when it was not, and told SEIU that its section 8.1 proposal needed more
work. The City foreclosed any signals of areas of compromise to the union in these initial
exchanges.
When SEIU produced Templeton at the next meeting on May 24, as a more conciliatory
spokesperson, who broached non-economic subjects as a means for SEIU to gauge the City’s
good faith, the City was again dismissive. Hughes certainly disabused Templeton of any
prospect of an attempt to exchange SEIU’s non-economic proposals for the City’s economic
proposals to create momentum, when he ended the meeting by stating that the work week
proposal was “in no way, shape, or form” connected to the City’s economic concessions.
At the June 6 meeting, Templeton began by attempting to smoke out the City’s
flexibility to continue negotiations past July 1 by citing the news article on the City’s adoption
of the budget that assumed the economic savings sought from SEIU. Hughes did not reveal
any of the City’s intentions in that regard. He asserted that in his experience he had never
21 The absence of evidence that safety employees were required to accept furlough
days, merit pay freezes, or similar equivalent concessions should be noted in this context.
40

________________________
encountered an employer holding up budget approval pending the outcome of negotiations.
(But see City of Selma, supra, PERB Decision No 2380-M, p. 8.) At this meeting, Hughes
denied that a calculation of the projected savings from a 2011-2012 merit pay freeze was
pertinent (it was simply a fluctuating cost), or could even be calculated. SEIU needed
confirmation to determine if its 9/8 proposal was sized right.22 After presentation of SEIU’s
non-economic terms, including the three-year term, Hughes mechanically responded that
CalPERS was the “big issue.” While future CalPERS increased contributions were a potential
risk, so, too, were health insurance premiums, but the City showed no interest in SEIU’s
alternative proposal on that subject. Despite Hughes’s assertion to the City Council on June 28
that SEIU had proposed front-loaded concessions as means for a longer term, these
concessions were not time-limited, but were amendments to the MOU. (State of California
(Department of Personnel Administration) (1989) PERB Decision No. 739-S.) The City’s one
year term proposal allowed full and unrestricted reopener rights to the City and none to SEIU,
a clearly unacceptable proposal because it completely undermines the purpose of negotiating
an MOU of any length term. (See San Bernardino City Unified School District (1998) PERB
Decision No. 1270.)
Also at the June 6 meeting, Hughes announced the City’s intention to present the City’s
LBFO at the next meeting, around the time Templeton stated the union would have to get back
to him regarding an extension of the merit pay freeze. SEIU indicated its intention to provide
an alternative economic proposal (i.e., the 9/8 plan), while insisting on greater clarity on the
target savings sought by the City, which Hughes agreed to provide.
22 Health premium contributions are generally pre-tax payments resulting in less impact
to employees financially.
41

At the June 15 meeting, the City again offered no counterproposal to SEIU’s
comprehensive proposal, and offered the same answer to the health insurance premium cost
sharing proposal as it gave for the merit pay freeze, that such future costs were uncertain.
Avoiding future cost uncertainty was a primary motivation of the City, according to Hughes.
Then Hughes abruptly asserted that economic issues were not the primary obstacles. This was
before the parties had even engaged in the most detailed single discussion of a bargaining
subject in the negotiations, the seasonal work schedule. By the time the City was prepared to
declare impasse no tentative agreements had been executed on any issues, economic or non-
economic. The record establishes that the City consistently demonstrated a willingness to
provide only a “perfunctory review” of SEIU’s proposals. (Los Angeles County Civil Service
Commission v. Superior Court, supra, 23 Cal.3d 55, at p. 62.)
During the parties’ last face-to-face negotiation session on June 15, SEIU announced
that the membership had agreed to the temporary wage freeze side letter and Hughes had
challenged SEIU to make either proposal or a “supposal” on the 9/8 schedule (which
Templeton promised in writing). Nevertheless, Hughes presented the City’s LBFO with only
the removal of the second tier retirement plan. Hughes ended the meeting without promising
another face-to-face meeting because he deemed it in the City Council’s prerogative to
determine whether the parties were at impasse, even without a meeting to explore SEIU’s 9/8
proposal.
Following the June 15 meeting, SEIU provided a comprehensive written
counterproposal and its executed offer of the interim merit pay freeze. The City Council
responded by communicating its ultimatum that the union accept the LBFO or have the terms
imposed.
42

________________________
Under Kings In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority, supra, PERB Decision No.
2009-M, it must be concluded that the City prematurely declared impasse by denying SEIU an
opportunity to fully present its new proposal addressing the outstanding economic and non-
economic issues in the bargaining. The declaration was sudden and abrupt while SEIU was
continuing to make concessions. (Id.) Impasse declaration was prompted not by the City’s
assessment of the parties’ actual differences, but on the fact that it had not achieved
capitulation to all of its economic demands. The record gives no indication that the City ever
considered or devised a strategy designed to obtain consent from SEIU for a successor MOU.
The fact that the concessions sought by the City may have been “modest” in its view does not
legitimize a take-it-or leave-it approach to bargaining.
The objective factors further demonstrate a lack of genuine impasse. (City & County of
San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision No. 2041-M.) There were a total of five bargaining
sessions at which the fully constituted bargaining teams were present. A total of
approximately 13 hours were logged. This is not a long time for successor agreement
negotiations in the context of concessionary bargaining. No tentative agreements were
executed. The record -- particularly the bargaining notes -- give little evidence of constructive,
problem-solving exchanges. SEIU had agreed in principle to two of the three economic
concessions demanded by the City, offered the side letter extension, and promised an economic
counterproposal that would arguably provide more savings than demanded by the City. This
demonstrates movement rather than stalemate. At the same time most of the non-economic
issues had not been wrapped up.23
23 SEIU does not argue that the City violated the MMBA by engaging in surface
bargaining, except as it supports the premature declaration of impasse violation.
43

The City violated sections 3503, 3505, and 3506 of the MMBA by prematurely
declaring impasse and unilaterally implementing the terms of its LBFO. Because the City’s
local rule defines impasse consistent with PERB precedent, the City by the same conduct
violated PERB Regulation 32603, subdivision (g).
Implementation of an MOU
In Modesto City Schools, supra, PERB Decision No. 291, PERB held that held that an
employer may implement the terms reasonably comprehended within its last, best, and final
offer following good faith negotiations and completion of impasse procedures. (Modesto City
Schools, supra, PERB Decision No. 291.) Modesto further held that it was an unfair practice
for an employer to implement a duration clause that limited negotiations for a specified period
of time even if that term was included in its LBFO.
MMBA section 3505.7 provides that, although a public agency may implement its last,
best, and final offer after exhaustion of impasse procedures, it “shall not implement a
memorandum of understanding.” PERB has not addressed what constitutes unilateral
implementation of an MOU in violation of the statute, as opposed to a package of terms and
conditions reasonably comprehended within the LBFO. (See former sec. 3505.4)
In Rowland Unified School District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1053, PERB clarified
the Modesto rule, acknowledging that because a duration clause is a negotiable subject, the
employer could implement on such language. However, such a clause cannot operate to waive
the union’s right to bargain, and its implementation violates the statute if it limits the union’s
right to bargain. (Id. at pp. 11-12; State of California (Department of Personnel
Administration) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2130-S, p. 9.)
44

The imposed clause denied SEIU its right to reopen negotiations during the term as well
as its ability to complete negotiations in the light of “changed circumstances.” The City
Council’s resolution does not state in words the intention to implement an MOU.
Nevertheless, SEIU asserts that imposition of an MOU resulted from the forfeiture of
bargaining rights within the meaning of Rowland and Amador Valley Joint Union High School
District (1978) PERB Decision No. 74. SEIU provides no argument explaining how a mere
negotiations waiver term constitutes the implementation of an MOU. Regardless, the City
Council resolution adopted the City’s proposal for duration language that allowed unlimited
reopeners and none to the union. Hughes ignored Osayande’s proposal for reopeners limited to
the merit pay freeze, despite his expectation of a counter. The imposed clause deprived SEIU
of the right to reopen negotiations, and possibly even complete negotiations in the face of
“changed circumstances.”
The City unlawfully imposed a waiver of bargaining rights, in violation of sections
3503, 3505, and 3506 of the MMBA.
Refusal To Engage in “Changed Circumstances” Bargaining
SEIU contends that even if the City lawfully declared impasse in June, its July 7
meeting with the City broke the impasse and required the City to resume negotiations, which
the City refused to do. Under Modesto’s “changed circumstances” rule, the party objecting to
impasse must offer some concessions from its previous position sufficient to trigger the
possibility for further give-and-take.
SEIU’s subsequent entreaty to the City, in which it offered unfettered control of
scheduling to the point of merely accepting overtime if the City still insisted on no-weekend
days off during 10 consecutive day shifts, was juxtaposed to what appeared to be an extremely
45

weak justification that instructions on unfinished work could not be transmitted between work
crews, or that employees on the Saturday shift could not be trusted to complete their share of
work. The City had deployed weekend coordinators throughout the weekend shifts. It is the
job of supervisors to address just such issues.
The City’s bargaining team asserted no movement from SEIU sufficient to bridge the
gap. SEIU wanted to hone in on the one issue Hughes maintained was the key reason for
impasse. By limiting its request to negotiate over the summer scheduling and signaling
capitulation to all of the City’s economic demands, SEIU demonstrated sufficient movement to
constitute changed circumstances in the negotiations.
The City argues that the complaint does not allege this theory and therefore cannot be
reached. The issue will be decided notwithstanding the lack of being pled in the complaint
because it is intimately intertwined with the pleaded theories and was fully litigated. (City of
Selma, supra, PERB Decision No. 2380-M, p. 15.) As to the merits, the City does not dispute
that the duration clause language unreasonably deprived SEIU of bargaining rights, but asserts
only that the City had legitimately declared impasse, a contention rejected above.
The City unlawfully refused to resume bargaining in the face of changed circumstances
in violation of sections 3503, 3505, and 3506 of the MMBA.
REMEDY
MMBA section 3509, subdivision (b), states, in part:
The initial determination as to whether the charge of unfair
practice is justified and, if so, the appropriate remedy necessary
to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, shall be a matter within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the board.
It has been found that the City failed to meet and confer in good faith in violation of
MMBA sections 3505 and 3509, subdivision (b), and PERB Regulation 32603, subdivision (c),
46

by (1) prematurely declaring the parties were at impasse without satisfying its obligation to
meet and confer in good faith with the SEIU and imposing its LBFO; (2) imposing a reopener
clause allowing the City, but not SEIU unlimited reopeners over the course of a specified term
during which terms and conditions were unilaterally imposed by the City; and (3) failing to
resume negotiations following the breaking of the negotiations impasse as a result of SEIU’s
new proposals which constituted changed circumstances. The appropriate remedy in
bargaining cases includes an order to cease and desist from the unlawful conduct, and to
restore the status quo. (Desert Sands Unified School District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1682;
Regents of the University of California (1994) PERB Decision No. 1077-H.) Restoring the
status quo typically requires rescission of the unlawful conduct and to make employees whole
for losses resulting from the unlawful conduct. (California State Employees’ Assn. v. Public
Employment Relations Bd. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 923, 946.) Accordingly, the City is ordered
to rescind its unilateral imposition of the LBFO, and make employees whole for actual losses
that resulted from implementation of the LBFO until such time as the parties completed a
successor MOU. Interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum will be added to any monetary
loss. (Ventura County Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1547; The
Regents of the University of California (1997) PERB Decision No. 1188-H.) As such remedy
may require calculations, offsets, and tax consequences considering furloughs and retirement
deductions, an opportunity to discuss a negotiated solution may better serve the parties.
Hence, this order shall be stayed for 45 days before submitting the matter to compliance to
allow the parties an opportunity to consider whether a negotiated remedy is appropriate. If the
parties decline to negotiate or are unable to reach an agreement within 45 days, this order shall
then take effect. (Ventura County Community College District, supra, PERB Decision No.
47

1547.)
As a result of these violations, the City also interfered with the rights of employees to
be represented by SEIU in violation of MMBA section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32603,
subdivision (a), and denied SEIU its right to represent employees in their employment relations
with the City in violation of MMBA section 3503 and PERB Regulation 32603, subdivision
(b). Imposition of the reopener language also violated PERB Regulation 32603, subdivision
(g). It is appropriate to order the City to cease and desist from such unlawful conduct. (Rio
Hondo Community College District (1983) PERB Decision No. 292.)
Finally, it is appropriate that the City be ordered to post a notice incorporating the terms
of the order at locations where notices to public employees are customarily posted for
employees represented by SEIU. Posting such a notice, signed by an authorized agent of the
City will provide employees with notice that the City has acted in an unlawful manner, it is
required to cease and desist from such activity, and it will comply with the order. It effectuates
the purposes of the MMBA that employees are informed of the resolution of this controversy
and the City’s readiness to comply. (Placerville Union School District (1978) PERB Decision
No. 69.)
PROPOSED ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in
this case, it is found that the City of San Ramon (City) violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
(MMBA), Government Code sections 3503, 3505, and 3506, and Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) Regulation 32603, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), and (g) (Cal. Code of
Regs., tit. 8, sec. 31001 et seq.), by (1) prematurely declaring the parties were at impasse
without satisfying its obligation to meet and confer in good faith with the Service Employees
48

International Union Local 1021 (SEIU) and unilaterally imposing its last, best, and final offer;
(2) unilaterally imposing a reopener clause allowing the City, but not SEIU, unlimited
reopeners over the course of a specified term during which terms and conditions were
unilaterally imposed by the City; and (3) failing to resume negotiations following the breaking
of the negotiations impasse as a result of SEIU’s new proposals, which constituted changed
circumstances.
Pursuant to section 3509, subdivision (b), it is hereby ORDERED that the City, its
governing board and its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing to meet and confer in good faith by prematurely declaring the
parties are at impasse and unilaterally imposing its last, best, and final offer.
2. 	Unilaterally imposing a reopener clause allowing the City, but not SEIU,
unlimited reopeners over the course of a specified term during which terms and conditions
were unilaterally imposed by the City.
3. 	Failing to resume negotiations following the breaking of impasse as a
result of SEIU’s new proposals, which constituted changed circumstances.
3. 	Denying SEIU its right to represent bargaining unit employees in their
employment relations with the City.
4. 	Interfering with the right of bargaining unit employees to be represented
by the employee organization of their choosing.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE MMBA:
1. 	Rescind imposition of the last, best, and final offer, and return to the
49

status quo as it existed before imposition on June 28, 2011, until such time as the parties
completed a successor MOU.
2. 	Make all affected employees whole for loss of wages or benefits due to
the City’s violation of the MMBA, including interest at 7 percent per annum.
3. 	With regard to the make-whole remedy and the order to return to the
status quo, this Order shall be stayed for 45 days to provide the parties an opportunity to meet
and confer over a mutually acceptable remedy. In the event no agreement is reached within 45
days and the parties have not mutually agreed to an extension of time within which to do so,
SEIU shall notify the General Counsel of PERB, or the General Counsel’s designee, so that
compliance proceedings may be initiated.
4. 	Within ten (10) workdays of the service of a final decision in this matter,
post copies of the Notice, attached hereto as an Appendix, at all work locations where notices
to employees in the City are customarily posted. The Notice must be signed by an authorized
agent of the City, indicating that it will comply with the terms of this Order. Such posting
shall be maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be
taken to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced, or covered with any
other material. In addition to the physical posting of paper notices, the Notice shall be posted
by electronic message, intranet, internet site, and other electronic means customarily used by
the City to communicate with its employees in the bargaining unit represented by SEIU. (City
of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M.)
5. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel of PERB, or the General Counsel’s designee. The City shall
50

provide reports in writing, as directed by the General Counsel or her designee. All reports
regarding compliance with this Order shall be concurrently served on SEIU.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed Decision
and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the Board itself
within 20 days of service of this Decision. The Board’s address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
E-FILE: PERBe-file.Appeals@perb.ca.gov
In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32300.)
A document is considered “filed” when actually received during a regular PERB business
day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code, § 11020, subd.
(a).) A document is also considered “filed” when received by facsimile transmission before the
close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet or received by electronic
mail before the close of business, which meets the requirements of PERB Regulation 32135,
subdivision (d), provided the filing party also places the original, together with the required
number of copies and proof of service, in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32135, subds.
(b), (c), and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32090, 32091 and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
51

on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
52