PERB Decision No. 2313E

Testo completo

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 477,
Charging Party, 	Case 	LA-CE-5389-E
v . 	PERB Decision N 	2313
March 21, 2013	RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Appearances: Sonja J. Woodward, Attorney, for California School Employees Association &
its Chapter 477; Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore by Mary L. Dowell and Adrianna E. Guzman,
Attorneys, for Rio Hondo Community College District.
Before Martinez, Chair; Huguenin and Winslow, Members.
HUGUENIN, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the Rio Hondo Community College District (District),
to the proposed decision (PD) (attached) of an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ
determined that the District violated section 3543.5(a), (b) and (c) of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA)' by refusing to bargain with California School Employees
Association & its Chapter 477 (CSEA) over the effects of a decision to install security
cameras.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the hearing record, the
ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the District's exceptions, and CSEA's response
thereto. The ALJ's findings of fact are supported by the record and neither party excepts
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 477,
Charging Party,
V.
RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.	· Respondent.
Case No.	No. LA-CE-5389-E
PERB Decision No.	o. 	2313
March 21, 2013
Appearances: Sonja J. Woodward, Attorney, for California School Employees Association &
its Chapter 477; Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore by Mary L. Dowell and Adrianna E. Guzman,
Attorneys, for Rio Hondo Community College District.
Before Martinez, Chair; Huguenin and Winslow, Members.
DECISION	DECISION
HUGUENIN, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the Rio Hondo Community College District (District),
to the proposed decision (PD) (attached)
of
an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ
determined that the District violated section 3543.S(a), (b) and (c)
of
the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA) 1 by refusing to bargain with California School Employees
Association & its Chapter 477 (CSEA) over the effects
of
a decision to install security
cameras.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the hearing record, the
ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions oflaw, the District's exceptions, and CSEA's response
thereto. 	The ALJ' s findings
of
fact are supported by the record and neither party excepts
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
* * * CLARIFIED BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
(2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No.
2915a-H * * *

Accordingly, we adopt the ALJ's findings of fact as the findings of the Board itself,
except as expressly noted below. We also adopt the ALJ's conclusions of law insofar as they
are consistent with our discussion below.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
In mid-April 2009, the District informed CSEA of its intent to install security
surveillance cameras in its new Learning Resource Center. Thereafter, the District expanded
plans for the cameras to include its parking lots. The cameras would show CSEA unit
members while coming and going, entering and leaving a break room, cleaning public areas of
the building and maintaining outdoor areas of the campus. (PD, p. 2.)
In early June 2009, CSEA requested to negotiate over the decision and effects of the
decision to install the surveillance cameras. CSEA's letter stated, in pertinent part:
This is a formal request by CSEA Chapter #477 at your district to
negotiate over the decision and effects of the District's stated
intent to install surveillance cameras in select areas on the
College campus.
Specifically, CSEA has learned that it is the intention of the
District to install surveillance monitoring cameras in the new
Learning Resources Center/Library. The decision to install such
cameras in areas where CSEA members work impacts the
working conditions of our members, including performance
evaluations and potential discipline, and is a matter within the
scope of bargaining
Regarding CSEA's request to negotiate over the surveillance
cameras, it is not CSEA's intention to prevent the District from
using such cameras but rather to ensure that the District does not
use the cameras to monitor CSEA bargaining unit employees
while they are at work and for the District to use footage or video
images to evaluate, monitor and/or potentially attempt to
discipline classified employees.
CSEA requests that the District contact Chapter President, Lisa
Sandoval, to schedule a date for negotiation of this matter. CSEA
2PERB Regulation 32300(c) provides that "[an exception not specifically urged shall
be waived." (PERB Regs. are codified at Cal. Code Regs., tit.8, sec. 31001 et seq.)
2
thereto.2 Accordingly, we adopt the ALJ's findings of fact as the findings of the Board itself, thereto."
except as expressly noted below. We also adopt the ALJ' s conclusions of law insofar as they
are consistent with our discussion below.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
In mid-April 2009, the District informed CSEA of its intent to install security
surveillance cameras in its new Learning Resource Center. Thereafter, the District expanded
plans for the cameras to include its parking lots. The cameras would show CSEA unit
members while coming and going, entering and leaving a break room, cleaning public areas of
the building and maintaining outdoor areas of the campus. (PD, p. 2.)
In early June 2009, CSEA requested to negotiate over the decision and effects of the
decision to install the surveillance cameras. CSEA's letter stated, in pertinent part:
This is a formal request by CSEA Chapter #4 77 at your district to
negotiate over the decision and effects of the District's stated
intent to install surveillance cameras in select areas on the
College campus.
Specifically, CSEA has learned that it is the intention of the
District to install surveillance monitoring cameras in the new
Learning Resources Center/Library. The decision to install such
cameras in areas where CSEA members work impacts the
working conditions of our members, including performance
evaluations and potential discipline, and is a matter within the
scope of bargaining.
Regarding CSEA's request to negotiate over the surveillance
cameras, it is not CSEA's intention to prevent the District from
using such cameras but rather to ensure that the District does not
use the cameras to monitor CSEA bargaining unit employees
while they are at work and for the District to use footage or video
images to evaluate, monitor and/or potentially attempt to
discipline classified employees.
CSEA requests that the District contact Chapter President, Lisa
Sandoval, to schedule a date for negotiation of this matter. CSEA
2 PERB Regulation 32300(c) provides that "[a]n exception not specifically urged shall
be waived." (PERB Regs. are codified at Cal. Code Regs., tit.8, sec. 31001 et seq.)
2

further requests that the District not implement any aspect of the
camera surveillance unless and until the District has completed its
bargaining obligation. Thank you for your cooperation.
CSEA looks forward to a cooperative and constructive set of
negotiations on this difficult topic.
(PD, pp. 2-3.) The District responded on June 30, 2009, denying CSEA's request to negotiate.
(PD, pp. 3-4.)
In September 2009, still seeking to convince the District to negotiate, CSEA provided
the District a copy of a memorandum of understanding with another local school district which
addressed use of video cameras. (PD, p. 4.) Unconvinced, the District reiterated its opposition
to negotiating. (PD, pp. 4-5.)
In October 2009, CSEA brought the instant charge. PERB's Office of the General
Counsel issued a complaint in June 2010, alleging, inter alia, that on June 30, 2009 the District
violated sections 3543.5(c), (a) and (b) of EERA when it denied CSEA's "request to negotiate
the effects the security surveillance cameras will have on employees." A hearing was held in
May 2011, and the ALJ issued the PD in mid-September 2011. (PD, p. 1.)
PROPOSED DECISION
The ALJ concluded that CSEA requested effects bargaining on two negotiable areas of
impact of the District decision to install security cameras, to wit, performance evaluations and
potential discipline. (PD, p. 7.) The ALJ concluded as well that District's decision to install
security surveillance cameras did have reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects. Thus, the
ALJ concluded that the District's denial of CSEA's request to negotiate over the decision's
effects violated EERA sections 3543.5(c), (a) and (b). (PD, pp. 7-8.) The ALJ proposed the
traditional remedy for a refusal to bargain violation, consisting of cease and desist, bargaining
and posting orders. (PD, pp. 8-10.)
w
further requests that the District not implement any aspect
of
the
camera surveillance unless and until the District has completed its
bargaining obligation. Thank you for your cooperation.
CSEA looks forward to a cooperative and constructive set
of
negotiations on this difficult topic.
(PD, pp. 2-3.) The District responded on June 30, 2009, denying CSEA's request to negotiate.
(PD, pp. 3-4.)
In September 2009, still seeking to convince the District to negotiate, CSEA provided
the District a copy
of
a memorandum
of
understanding with another local school district which
addressed use
of
video cameras. (PD, p. 4.) Unconvinced, the District reiterated its opposition
to negotiating. (PD, pp. 4-5.)
In October 2009, CSEA brought the instant charge. 	PERB's Office
of
the General
Counsel issued a complaint in June 2010, alleging, inter alia, that on June 30, 2009 the District
violated sections 3543.S(c), (a) and (b)
of
EERA when it denied CSEA's "request to negotiate
the effects the security surveillance cameras will have on employees." A hearing was held in
May 2011, and the ALJ issued the PD in mid-September 2011. (PD,
p.
1.)
PROPOSED DECISION
The ALJ concluded that CSEA requested effects bargaining on two negotiable areas
of
impact
of
the District decision to install security cameras, to wit, performance evaluations and
potential discipline. (PD, p. 7.) The ALJ concluded as well that District's decision to install
security surveillance cameras did have reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects. Thus, the
ALJ concluded that the District's denial
of
CSEA's request to negotiate over the decision's
effects violated EERA sections 3543.S(c), (a) and (b). (PD, pp. 7-8.) The ALJ proposed the
traditional remedy for a refusal to bargain violation, consisting of cease and desist, bargaining
and posting orders. (PD, pp. 8-10.)
3

DISCUSSION
The District takes exception to each of the ALJ's principal conclusions of law. The
challenged conclusions are: (1) "CSEA's June 2009 letter to the District clearly requested
bargaining over the 'effects' of the decision to install security cameras" (PD, p. 7.); (2) "[the
letter also clearly identified two negotiable areas of impact: performance evaluations and
potential discipline" (PD, p. 7.); and (3) "[the District's decision to install security cameras
had reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects" (PD, p. 8.). The District challenges as well the
ALJ's failure to discuss the District's claim that CSEA's effects bargaining demand was tardy
and thus waived effects bargaining rights.
We first revisit briefly the legal principles governing effects bargaining and waiver, and
then address the District's contentions on appeal.
Effects Bargaining
Upon reaching a firm decision and before implementing a non-negotiable decision, an
employer must give notice and bargain upon request over the reasonably foreseeable effects of
that decision. (Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision N 	373
(Mt. Diablo); Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision N 	2287-H
(CSU).) The employer must provide notice sufficiently in advance of implementation to
permit the union a reasonable amount of time to consider demanding to bargain and to
negotiate over the effects. (CSU, citing Victor Valley Union High School District (1986)
PERB Decision N 	565 (Victor Valley) and Compton Community College District (1989)
PERB Decision
A union's effects bargaining demand should afford the employer "general notice of the
union's interest in the effects of the . . . decision." (Newman-Crows Landing Unified School
4
DISCUSSION
The District takes exception to each of the ALJ' s principal conclusions of law. The
challenged conclusions are: ( 1) "CSEA' s June 2009 letter to the District clearly requested
bargaining over the 'effects' of the decision to install security cameras" (PD, p. 7.); (2) "[t]he
letter also clearly identified two negotiable areas of impact: performance evaluations and
potential discipline" (PD, p. 7.); and (3) "[t]he District's decision to install security cameras
had reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects" (PD, p. 8.). The District challenges as well the
ALJ's failure to discuss the District's claim that CSEA's effects bargaining demand was tardy
and thus waived effects bargaining rights.
We first revisit briefly the legal principles governing effects bargaining and waiver, and
then address the District's contentions on appeal.
Effects Bargaining
Upon reaching a firm decision and before implementing a non-negotiable decision, an
employer must give notice and bargain upon request over the reasonably foreseeable effects of
that decision. (Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No	o. . 373
(Mt. Diablo); Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No.	o. 	2287-H
(CSU).) The employer must provide notice sufficiently in advance of implementation to
permit the union a reasonable amount of time to consider demanding to bargain and to
negotiate over the effects. (CSU, citing Victor Valley Union High School District (1986)
PERB Decision No.o. 565 (Victor Valley) and Compton Community College District (1989)
PERB Decision No.	No. 720 (Compton).)	720 (Compton).)
A union's effects bargaining demand should afford the employer "general notice of the
union's interest in the effects of the ... decision." (Newman-Crows Landing Unified School
4

District (1982) PERB Decision 2
When approaching effects bargaining, parties must anticipate changes yet to flow from
the employer's decision. Union and employer may disagree over what effects are possible and
within the scope of representation. Thus, clarification is essential. Upon receiving an effects
bargaining demand, and before refusing to negotiate, an employer must attempt to clarify
through discussions with the union any uncertainty as to what is proposed for bargaining and
whether it falls within the scope of representation. (Healdsburg Union High School District
and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District (1983) PERB Decision
375, at pp.8-10 (Healdsburg/San Mateo) [negotiating parties must clarify what is proposed
for bargaining and whether it falls within the scope of representation].) Refusing an effects
bargaining demand without first attempting to clarify ambiguities and or whether matters
proposed for bargaining fall within the scope of representation, violates the duty to bargain in
good faith. (Ibid.)
Waiver
A waiver of the right to negotiate must be clear and unmistakable. The evidence must
indicate an intentional relinquishment of the right to bargain. (Amador Valley Joint Union
High School District (1978) PERB Decision 7
1 T
District (1982) PERB Decision 223 23 (Newman-Crows Landing).) An effects bargaining (Newman-Crows Landing).) An effects bargaining
demand need not "be specific or made in a particular form" so long as it "adequately signifies demand need not "be specific or made in a particular form"
so
long as it "adequately signifies
to the employer a desire to negotiate on a subject within the scope of representation," to wit, to the employer a desire to negotiate on a subject within the scope
of
representation," to wit,
the effects of a non-negotiable decision rather than the decision itself. (Ibid.) Further, the the effects
of
a non-negotiable decision rather than the decision itself. (Ibid.) Further, the
demand must identify clearly the areas of impact, viz., matters within the scope of demand must identify clearly the areas
of
impact, viz., matters within the scope
of
representation, on which it proposes to bargain. representation, on which it proposes to bargain.
5
No. No.
When approaching effects bargaining, parties must anticipate changes yet to flow from
the employer's decision. Union and employer may disagree over what effects are possible and
within the scope
of
representation. Thus, clarification is essential. Upon receiving an effects
bargaining demand, and before refusing to negotiate, an employer must attempt to clarify
through discussions with the union any uncertainty as to what is proposed for bargaining and
whether it falls within the scope
of
representation. (Healdsburg Union High School District
and Healdsburg Union School District/San Mateo City School District (1983) PERB Decision
375, at pp.8-10 (Healdsburg/San Mateo) [negotiating parties must clarify what is proposed
for bargaining and whether it falls within the scope ofrepresentation].) Refusing an effects
bargaining demand without first attempting to clarify ambiguities and or whether matters
proposed for bargaining fall within the scope
of
representation, violates the duty to bargain in
good faith. (Ibid.)
No. No.
Waiver
A waiver of the right to negotiate must be clear and unmistakable. The evidence must
indicate an intentional relinquishment of the right to bargain. (Amador Valley Joint Union
High School District (1978) PERB Decision . 4; C 74; California alifornia State Employees Assn. v. State Employees Assn.
v.
PERB (1996) 51 Cal.App.4 923, 937-938.) Public policy disfavors finding a waiver based on PERE (1996)
51
Cal.App.4 th 923, 937-938.) Public policy disfavors finding a waiver based on
inference.inference. (Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB Decision(Long Beach Community College District (2003) PERB DecisionNo.No.
No. No
1568.)568.) Thehe

burden of establishing a waiver is upon the party asserting it, whether the claimed waiver is
grounded in alleged inaction, contract language or a simple failure to demand bargaining.
No. No.
An employer receiving a demand for effects bargaining may claim that the union's
bargaining demand was inadequate and thus effectively waive the union's right to meet and
negotiate over effects. (Newman-Crows Landing, supra, PERB Decision 223.) T
375 obligation to seek clarification of
the union's effects bargaining demand, and (2) even as clarified, the union's effects bargaining
demand was inadequate, to wit, it failed to indicate a desire to bargain effects, as opposed to
the decision, or it failed to identify clearly a matter within the scope of representation on which
the union sought negotiations.
District Contentions
We address now the District's contentions. In the brief supporting its statement of
exceptions, the District urges: (1) CSEA waived its right to bargain effects; (2) CSEA failed to
clearly identify negotiable effects; (3) the type of evidence used to support discipline and
employee evaluations does not constitute a negotiable effect; (4) the ALJ failed to provide
analysis on how the purported effects impact the terms and conditions of employment; and
(5) cases relied on by the ALJ are distinguishable. We address each.
1. District's claim that CSEA waived the right to bargain over the effects by failing timely to
The record establishes that on April 16, 2009 during a labor relations meeting the
District notified CSEA of its decision to install surveillance security cameras. Thereafter, on
June 8, 2009, CSEA wrote to the District demanding to bargain the effects of the decision on
6
burden
of
establishing a waiver is upon the party asserting it, whether the claimed waiver is
grounded in alleged inaction, contract language or a simple failure to demand bargaining.
An employer receiving a demand for effects bargaining may claim that the union's
bargaining demand was inadequate and thus effectively waive the union's right to meet and
negotiate over effects. (Newman-Crows Landing, supra, PERB Decision No.No. 223.) Too
succeed with this claim, the employer must demonstrate, inter alia, that: (1) the employer met succeed with this claim, the employer must demonstrate, inter alia, that: (1) the employer met
its Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision its Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision 375 obligation to seek clarification
of
the union's effects bargaining demand, and (2) even as clarified, the union's effects bargaining
demand was inadequate, to wit, it failed to indicate a desire to bargain effects,
as
opposed to
the decision, or it failed to identify clearly a matter within the scope
of
representation on which
the union sought negotiations.
District Contentions
We address now the District's contentions. In the brief supporting its statement
of
exceptions, the District urges: (1) CSEA waived its right to bargain effects; (2) CSEA failed to
clearly identify negotiable effects; (3) the type
of
evidence used to support discipline and
employee evaluations does not constitute a negotiable effect; (4) the ALJ failed to provide
analysis on how the purported effects impact the terms and conditions
of
employment; and
(5) cases relied on by the ALJ are distinguishable. We address each.
request bargaining. request bargaining.
1.
District's claim that CSEA waived the right to bargain over the effects by failing timely to
The record establishes that on April 16, 2009 during a labor relations meeting the
District notified CSEA of its decision to install surveillance security cameras. Thereafter, on
June 8, 2009, CSEA wrote to the District demanding to bargain the effects of the decision on
6

discipline and evaluation procedures. The District responded to CSEA on June 30, 2009,
declining to negotiate, again during a labor relations meeting.
The District argues two facts supporting its claim of waiver. First, the District asserts
that when informed on April 16, 2009 of the District's intent to install the surveillance
cameras, CSEA's representative did not demand at that time to bargain but merely
acknowledged the District's communication by responding "Okay." Second, the District
asserts that CSEA did not tender its demand to bargain until early June. The District urges
that the foregoing sufficiently established that CSEA waived its right to negotiate the effects of
the decision to install surveillance cameras. We are not persuaded.
Silence, by itself, is never clear and unambiguous. To be deemed sufficient to waive
statutory rights, a union's silence must be accompanied by other indicia of intent, for example,
unreasonable delay. Whether a delay is unreasonable depends on the circumstances of the
particular case. (Victor Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 565; Compton, supra, PERB
Decision No. 720.) A silence of more than three months has been deemed sufficient to find
waiver of bargaining rights. (Stockton Police Officers' Assn. v. City of Stockton (1988)
206 Cal.App.3" 62, 66.) Where circumstances warrant, a silence of lesser duration could
support an inference of intent to relinquish bargaining rights. Thus, where an employer faces
an externally imposed deadline for action, and provides a union reasonable notice thereof,
failure to request negotiations sufficiently in advance of the employer's deadline, could signal
an intentional relinquishment of bargaining rights. Each case will turn on its own facts.
We conclude that here the District has failed to adduce clear and unmistakable proof of
waiver. Without more, CSEA's delay alone is insufficient to establish clearly and
The District claims the CSEA demand to bargain was made on June 13, 2009, while
CSEA points to its letter dated June 8, 2009. This discrepancy is of no moment to our
decision.
7
discipline and evaluation procedures. The District responded to CSEA on June 30, 2009,
declining to negotiate, again during a labor relations meeting.
The District argues two facts supporting its claim
of
waiver. First, the District asserts
that when informed on April 16, 2009
of
the District's intent to install the surveillance
cameras, CSEA's representative did not demand at that time to bargain but merely
acknowledged the District's communication by responding "Okay." Second, the District
asserts that CSEA did not tender its demand to bargain until early June.3 The District urges
that the foregoing sufficiently established that CSEA waived its right to negotiate the effects
of
the decision to install surveillance cameras. We are not persuaded.
Silence, by itself,
is
never clear and unambiguous. To be deemed sufficient to waive
statutory rights, a union's silence must be accompanied by other indicia
of
intent, for example,
unreasonable delay. Whether a delay is unreasonable depends on the circumstances
of
the
particular case. (Victor Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 565; Compton, supra, PERB
Decision No. 720.) A silence
of
more than three months has been deemed sufficient to find
waiver
of
bargaining rights. (Stockton Police Officers' Assn.
v.
City
of
Stockton (1988)
206 Cal.App.3
rd
62, 66.) Where circumstances warrant, a silence
of
lesser duration could
support an inference
of
intent to relinquish bargaining rights. Thus, where an employer faces
an externally imposed deadline for action, and provides a union reasonable notice thereof,
failure to request negotiations sufficiently in advance
of
the employer's deadline, could signal
an intentional relinquishment of bargaining rights. Each case will turn on its own facts.
We conclude that here the District has failed to adduce clear and unmistakable proof of
waiver. Without more, CSEA's delay alone is insufficient to establish clearly and
3 The District claims the CSEA demand to bargain was made on June 13, 2009, while
CSEA points to its letter dated June 8, 2009. This discrepancy is of no moment to our
decision.
7

unmistakable that CSEA intentionally waived its effects bargaining rights. The District failed
to allege or prove that it informed CSEA that the District faced any deadline for implementing
its decision to install the cameras. Nor did the District allege or prove that it was prejudiced by
CSEA's delay in tendering its effects bargaining demand. Indeed, record testimony reveals
that as of the hearing date in early May 2011, two years after the union initially demanded to
bargain, the camera installation had not yet occurred. Testimony also establishes that:
(1) during the April 16, 2009 labor relations meeting CSEA was represented by only one
person, who informed District agents during the meeting that she would need to refer the
camera installation issue to her chapter executive board; (2) thereafter this CSEA agent did so;
and (3) thereafter the executive board sought guidance from the Chapter's CSEA labor
relations representative, who then prepared the letter demanding effects bargaining. In these
circumstances, the record does not support an inference that CSEA intended to waive its
statutory right to bargain over effects of the decision to install surveillance cameras. Thus, the
defense of waiver fails.
2. District's claim that CSEA failed to clearly identify negotiable effects.
The record establishes that in early June 2009 CSEA sent the District superintendent a
letter requesting to bargain over the effects of the decision to install cameras on discipline and
evaluation procedures. (PD, pp. 2-3.) To this request the District responded at a subsequent
labor relations meeting on June 30, 2009, that the District would not negotiate. (PD, pp. 3-4.)
The record does not establish that the District made any attempt to seek clarification from the
CSEA as to how the camera installation affected evaluation or discipline or otherwise fell
within the scope of representation.
The District urges that the ALJ wrongly concluded CSEA's bargaining demand
"clearly" requested bargaining over the "effects" of the decision to install surveillance security
8
unmistakably that CSEA intentionally waived its effects bargaining rights. The District failed
to allege or prove that it informed CSEA that the District faced any deadline for implementing
its decision to install the cameras. Nor did the District allege or prove that it was prejudiced by
CSEA's delay in tendering its effects bargaining demand. Indeed, record testimony reveals
that as of the hearing date in early May 2011, two years after the union initially demanded to
bargain, the camera installation had not yet occurred. Testimony also establishes that:
(1) during the April 16, 2009 labor relations meeting CSEA was represented by only one
person, who informed District agents during the meeting that she would need to refer the
camera installation issue to her chapter executive board; (2) thereafter this CSEA agent did so;
and (3) thereafter the executive board sought guidance from the Chapter's CSEA labor
relations representative, who then prepared the letter demanding effects bargaining. In these
circumstances, the record does not support an inference that CSEA intended to waive its
statutory right to bargain over effects of the decision to install surveillance cameras. Thus, the
defense of waiver fails.
2. District's claim that CSEA failed to clearly identify negotiable effects.
The record establishes that in early June 2009 CSEA sent the District superintendent a
letter requesting to bargain over the effects of the decision to install cameras on discipline and
evaluation procedures. (PD, pp. 2-3.) To this request the District responded at a subsequent
labor relations meeting on June 30, 2009, that the District would not negotiate. (PD, pp. 3-4.)
The record does not establish that the District made any attempt to seek clarification from the
CSEA as to how the camera installation affected evaluation or discipline or otherwise fell
within the scope of representation.
The District urges that the ALJ wrongly concluded CSEA's bargaining demand
"clearly" requested bargaining over the "effects" of the decision to install surveillance security
8

cameras. The District contends that to implicate an employer's bargaining duty, a union's
effects bargaining demand must "clearly identify negotiable areas of impact" and "absent such
identification the employer has no duty to bargain." Thus, concludes the District, its refusal to
negotiate was lawful because: (1) CSEA's June 2009 letter demanding to bargain "never
identified any negotiable areas of impact," that is, it did not describe "specific working
conditions it claimed would be impacted by the District's decision" (District Exceptions, p. 2.);
and (2) CSEA failed to identify "any other effects of the installation of cameras" except for
"the District's use of video tapes as evidence in evaluating or disciplining employees," which
the District contends is non-negotiable. (Ibid.) We disagree.
Prior to implementing a non-negotiable decision an employer must give notice and
upon request, negotiate over reasonably foreseeable effects upon matters within the scope of
representation. (CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. 2287-H.) The duty to bargain arises when a
firm decision is made. (Ibid.) Having made a firm decision, an employer must provide the
union with notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate before taking action that impacts
matters within the scope of representation. (Ibid.) (Regents of the University of California
(1987) PERB Decision No. 640-H.) This includes the duty to seek clarification of what is
proposed for bargaining and whether what is proposed falls within the scope of representation.
(Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision No. 375.)
Upon receiving a union's bargaining demand, the employer has three options:
(1) accede to the demand and address the union's concerns in negotiations; (2) ask the union
for its negotiation justification, viz., seek clarification of (a) the areas of impact proposed for
negotiation and (b) whether these areas of impact are within the scope of representation; or
(3) refuse the union's demand. In choosing the third option, the employer does so at its peril if
9
cameras. The District contends that to implicate an employer's bargaining duty, a union's
effects bargaining demand must "clearly identify negotiable areas of impact" and "absent such
identification the employer has no duty to bargain." Thus, concludes the District, its refusal to
negotiate was lawful because: (1) CSEA's June 2009 letter demanding to bargain "never
identified any negotiable areas of impact," that is, it did not describe "specific working
conditions it claimed would be impacted by the District's decision" (District Exceptions, p. 2.);
and (2) CSEA failed to identify "any other effects of the installation of cameras" except for
"the District's use of video tapes as evidence in evaluating or disciplining employees," which
the District contends is non-negotiable. (Ibid.) 	We disagree.
Prior to implementing a non-negotiable decision an employer must give notice and
upon request, negotiate over reasonably foreseeable effects upon matters within the scope of
representation. (CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. 2287-H.) The duty to bargain arises when a
firm decision is made. (Ibid.) Having made a firm decision, an employer must provide the
union with notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate before taking action that impacts
matters within the scope ofrepresentation. (Ibid.) (Regents of the University of California
(1987) PERB Decision No. 640-H.) This includes the duty to seek clarification of what is
proposed for bargaining and whether what is proposed falls within the scope of representation.
(Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision No. 375.)
Upon receiving a union's bargaining demand, the employer has three options:
(1) accede to the demand and address the union's concerns in negotiations; (2) ask the union
for its negotiation justification, viz., seek clarification of ( a) the areas of impact proposed for
negotiation and (b) whether these areas of impact are within the scope of representation; or
(3) refuse the union's demand. In choosing the third option, the employer does so at its peril if
9

its refusal is later determined to be unjustified. (CSU, supra, PERB Decision 2
3
The District cites several Board decisions which it claims support its position that
CSEA's bargaining demand, as written, was insufficient to implicate the District's duty to
bargain over the effects of its decision to install surveillance cameras. We review each.
In County of Riverside (2010) PERB Decision N 2097-M, the Board ruled that a
union's bargaining request did not sufficiently indicate that it sought to bargain an effect of an
announced-but-not-implemented change to a pay plan, rather than the pay plan change itself.
Even though the subject on which the union sought to bargain was itself clear, viz., cessation
of pay upgrades for employees with newly-acquired "hot skills," the Board deemed the record
contradictory and found that the union's various communications to the employer vacillated
between designating the matter to be bargained as an effect of the pay plan change or as the
change itself. Thus, relying on Newman-Crows Landing, supra, PERB Decision N 223, the
Board concluded that the union had failed to demand to bargain over the effects of a non-
negotiable decision. Here, by contrast, CSEA's request straightforwardly sought to negotiate
over the effects of the decision to install the surveillance cameras.
In Sylvan Union Elementary School District (1992) PERB Decisions N 919, the
Board concluded that the union failed to request to negotiate over the effects of a decision to
eliminate certain bargaining unit positions. Instead, ruled the Board, the union agent merely
expressed the union's "concerns" about the timing and impact of the employer's non-
negotiable decision on employee reassignment opportunities, which communication was
insufficient to put the employer on notice that the union had requested to negotiate. What was
uncertain was the union's desire for negotiations at all, not the nature or extent of the effects
10
its refusal is later determined to be unjustified. (CSU, supra, PERB Decision . No. No 2287-H; 287-H;
Healdsburg/San Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision Mateo, supra, PERB DecisionNo. No. 375.) 75.)
The District cites several Board decisions which it claims support its position that
CSEA's bargaining demand, as written, was insufficient to implicate the District's duty to
bargain over the effects
of
its decision to install surveillance cameras. We review each.
In County
of
Riverside (2010) PERB Decision No. o. 2097-M, the Board ruled that a
union's bargaining request did not sufficiently indicate that it sought to bargain an effect
of
an
announced-but-not-implemented change to a pay plan, rather than the pay plan change itself.
Even though the subject on which the union sought to bargain was itself clear, viz., cessation
of
pay upgrades for employees with newly-acquired "hot skills," the Board deemed the record
contradictory and found that the union's various communications to the employer vacillated
between designating the matter to be bargained as an effect
of
the pay plan change or as the
change itself. Thus, relying on Newman-Crows Landing, supra, PERB Decision No.o. 223, the
Board concluded that the union had failed to demand to bargain over the effects
of
a non-
negotiable decision. Here, by contrast, CSEA's request straightforwardly sought to negotiate
over the effects
of
the decision to install the surveillance cameras.
In Sylvan Union Elementary School District (1992) PERB Decisions No.o. 919, the
Board concluded that the union failed to request to negotiate over the effects
of
a decision to
eliminate certain bargaining unit positions. Instead, ruled the Board, the union agent merely
expressed the union's "concerns" about the timing and impact of the employer's non-
negotiable decision on employee reassignment opportunities, which communication was
insufficient to put the employer on notice that the union had requested to negotiate. What was
uncertain was the union's desire for negotiations at all, not the nature or extent of the effects

the union deemed implicated by the employer's decision. Here, CSEA's request
straightforwardly sought to negotiate.
In Allan Hancock Community College District (1989) PERB Decision N 768, the
charge alleged that the employer refused to bargain when it placed a unit member in a new,
higher-compensated classification. The union demanded to negotiate over: (1) the "wages,
hours and working conditions" of the new classification, and (2) the position "reclassification."
Along with its bargaining demand the union sent specific proposals which addressed a
different matter, to wit, an upgrade of wages and hours of other unit members. The proposals
did not address the wages and hours of the new classification. In reply to a Board agent's
warning letter, the union's attorney argued for the first time an effects bargaining theory but
alleged no further facts. The Board agent's dismissal letter, adopted by the Board, concluded,
inter alia, that the union failed to allege facts sufficient for an effects bargaining violation,
because the union's bargaining proposals addressed only wages and hours of other unit
members and not the effects of the District's reclassification decision on the reclassified
employee. Here, CSEA's request straightforwardly sought negotiations over the effects of the
decision to install the surveillance cameras, not an unrelated matter or one already dealt with in
the CBA.
In Beverley Hills Unified School District (2008) PERB Decision N 1969-E
(Beverly Hills), the Board considered allegations of refusal to bargain impacts and effects on
working hours of teachers resulting from a change in policy mandating that the teachers release
copies of student exams for off-site review. Under the district's prior policy, review of student
exams was on-site only. The union alleged that release of exams would sacrifice exam
question security and preclude using exam questions from prior years. Thus, each year
teachers would need to create new exams and would work longer hours for that purpose. The
11
the union deemed implicated by the employer's decision. Here, CSEA's request
straightforwardly sought to negotiate.
In Allan Hancock Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. o. 768, the
charge alleged that the employer refused to bargain when it placed a unit member in a new,
higher-compensated classification. The union demanded to negotiate over: (1) the "wages,
hours and working conditions"
of
the new classification, and (2) the position "reclassification."
Along with its bargaining demand the union sent specific proposals which addressed a
different matter, to wit, an upgrade
of
wages and hours
of
other unit members. The proposals
did not address the wages and hours
of
the new classification. In reply to a Board agent's
warning letter, the union's attorney argued for the first time an effects bargaining theory but
alleged no further facts. The Board agent's dismissal letter, adopted by the Board, concluded,
inter alia, that the union failed to allege facts sufficient for an effects bargaining violation,
because the union's bargaining proposals addressed only wages and hours
of
other unit
members and not the effects
of
the District's reclassification decision on the reclassified
employee. Here, CSEA' s request straightforwardly sought negotiations over the effects
of
the
decision to install the surveillance cameras, not an unrelated matter or one already dealt with in
the CBA.
In Beverley Hills Unified School District (2008) PERB Decision No.o. 1969-E
(Beverly Hills), the Board considered allegations
of
refusal to bargain impacts and effects on
working hours of teachers resulting from a change in policy mandating that the teachers release
copies of student exams for off-site review. Under the district's prior policy, review
of
student
exams was on-site only. The union alleged that release of exams would sacrifice exam
question security and preclude using exam questions from prior years. Thus, each year
teachers would need to create new exams and would work longer hours for that purpose. The
11

Board dismissed the union's effects bargaining allegation, ruling that: (1) the union's written
bargaining demands requested negotiation over the "impacts and effects of requiring the tests
to be released" without clearly identifying which subjects within the scope of representation,
e.g., working hours, which were implicated by the new policy, and (2) the union's unfair
practice charge allegations did not allege an "actual impact" on working hours of employees
arising from implementation of the policy. Here, by contrast, CSEA's request
straightforwardly identified matters within the scope of representation (discipline and
evaluation procedures) implicated by the District's installation of security cameras.
The District urges that in Beverly Hills, supra, PERB Decision N 	1969-E, the Board
imposed a further condition, namely, that a union's effects bargaining demand identify
"specific effects" on the matters within the scope of representation. We conclude such
specificity is unnecessary. We explain.
As the Board's decision in Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision 	3
Grappling with these issues first at the bargaining table enables the parties to reach consensus,
or at least clarity, regarding their respective positions on the reasonably foreseeable effects of
the employer's decision and enables as well discussions leading to agreement or impasse on
*In CSU, supra, PERB Decision N 	2287-H, we confirmed that when alleging an
employer refusal to negotiate in response to an effects bargaining demand, a union need not
allege or prove an actual change arising from implementation of the non-negotiable decision,
but merely that the impact upon which it sought to bargain was then reasonably foreseeable.
While some non-negotiable decisions, and their reasonably foreseeable effects, may
be well understood based on the parties' recent and frequent experience, viz., layoffs due to
state budget cuts, others are not. These may include program changes and institutional
reorganizations, with which neither the employer nor its employees have much experience.
12
Board dismissed the union's effects bargaining allegation, ruling that: (1) the union's written
bargaining demands requested negotiation over the "impacts and effects of requiring the tests
to be released" without clearly identifying which subjects within the scope of representation,
e.g., working hours, which were implicated by the new policy, and (2) the union's unfair
practice charge allegations did not allege an "actual impact"4 on working hours of employees
arising from implementation of the policy. Here, by contrast, CSEA's request
straightforwardly identified matters within the scope of representation (discipline and
evaluation procedures) implicated by the District's installation of security cameras.
The District urges that in Beverly Hills, supra, PERB Decision No.o. 1969-E, the Board
imposed a further condition, namely, that a union's effects bargaining demand identify
"specific effects" on the matters within the scope of representation. We conclude such
specificity is unnecessary. 	We explain.
As the Board's decision in Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB DecisionNo.	No. 375	75
makes clear, in the first instance the proper place to clarify bargaining demands and proposals	makes clear, in the first instance the proper place to clarify bargaining demands and proposals
is at the bargaining table itself. This is especially true in effects bargaining, where parties must	is at the bargaining table itself. This is especially true in effects bargaining, where parties must
anticipate the future impact of a non-negotiable decision announced but not yet implemented.	anticipate the future impact of a non-negotiable decision announced but not yet implemented. 5
Grappling with these issues first at the bargaining table enables the parties to reach consensus,
or at least clarity, regarding their respective positions on the reasonably foreseeable effects of
the employer's decision and enables as well discussions leading to agreement or impasse on
4 In CSU, supra, PERB Decision No.	o. 2287-H, we confirmed that when alleging an
employer refusal to negotiate in response to an effects bargaining demand, a union need not
allege or prove an actual change arising from implementation of the non-negotiable decision,
but merely that the impact upon which it sought to bargain was then reasonably foreseeable.
5 While some non-negotiable decisions, and their reasonably foreseeable effects, may
be well understood based on the parties' recent and frequent experience, viz., layoffs due to
state budget cuts, others are not. These may include program changes and institutional
reorganizations, with which neither the employer nor its employees have much experience.
12

those effects. Where, following such clarification, an employer remains unconvinced by the
union's rationale for negotiation on any or all of the effects proposed by the union for
negotiation, the employer may refuse to negotiate, having exhausted its duty under
Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision N 375 to discuss what is proposed for
bargaining and whether it falls within the scope of representation.
We hold that a union's effects bargaining demand is sufficient if it clearly identifies
negotiable areas of impact, viz., subject matters within the scope of representation, and clearly
indicates a desire to bargain over the effects of the decision as opposed to the decision itself.
Upon receiving such a demand, the duty to bargain obliges the employer either to bargain, or
to seek clarification of the union's negotiability rationale. If the employer seeks such
clarification, and it thereafter refuses to bargain, it may defend this refusal on the ground that
the union's bargaining demand, as clarified, failed to address an impact that was both
reasonably foreseeable and within the scope of representation. If the employer refuses to
bargain without seeking clarification of the union's negotiability rationale, it fails to meet and
negotiate in good faith. (Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision N 75.)
3. District's claim that the type of evidence used to support discipline and employee
evaluations does not constitute a negotiable effect.
The hearing record establishes that CSEA requested to bargain over the effects of
installation of surveillance cameras on discipline and evaluation procedures. (PD, pp. 2-3.)
The District avers in its brief supporting its exceptions, that CSEA expressed to the District its
concern that "the District . . . not use the cameras to monitor CSEA bargaining unit members
while they are at work" or "use the footage or video images to evaluate, monitor and/or
potentially attempt to discipline classified employees." (District's Brief ISO Exceptions, at
p. 14.) It is undisputed that one effect of the District's decision to install cameras would be
13
those effects. Where, following such clarification, an employer remains unconvinced by the
union's rationale for negotiation on any or all of the effects proposed by the union for
negotiation, the employer may refuse to negotiate, having exhausted its duty under
Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision No. o. 375 to discuss what is proposed for
bargaining and whether it falls within the scope of representation.
We hold that a union's effects bargaining demand is sufficient if it clearly identifies
negotiable areas of impact, viz., subject matters within the scope of representation, and clearly
indicates a desire to bargain over the effects of the decision as opposed to the decision itself.
Upon receiving such a demand, the duty to bargain obliges the employer either to bargain, or
to seek clarification of the union's negotiability rationale. If the employer seeks such
clarification, and it thereafter refuses to bargain, it may defend this refusal on the ground that
the union's bargaining demand, as clarified, failed to address an impact that was both
reasonably foreseeable and within the scope of representation. If the employer refuses to
bargain without seeking clarification of the union's negotiability rationale, it fails to meet and
negotiate in good faith. (Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision No. o. 3375.)
3. District's claim that the type of evidence used to support discipline and employee
evaluations does not constitute a negotiable effect.
The hearing record establishes that CSEA requested to bargain over the effects of
installation of surveillance cameras on discipline and evaluation procedures. (PD, pp. 2-3.)
The District avers in its brief supporting its exceptions, that CSEA expressed to the District its
concern that "the District . . . not use the cameras to monitor CSEA bargaining unit members
while they are at work" or "use the footage or video images to evaluate, monitor and/or
potentially attempt to discipline classified employees." (District's BriefISO Exceptions, at
p. 14.) It is undisputed that one effect of the District's decision to install cameras would be
13

creation of video records of the work place and the workers -- records not previously available
to the District and its managers and supervisors for monitoring, reviewing and assessing
employee performance. It is these new video records and their potential use in monitoring,
evaluating and disciplining employees which concerns CSEA.
The District contends that the "type of evidence" it uses for evaluation and discipline of
employees is not a matter within the scope of representation. Relying on PERB's EERA scope
of representation test," the District urges that video records created by the surveillance
cameras: (1) are not logically or reasonably related to wages, hours or an enumerated term or
condition of employment and that PERB has never ruled to the contrary; (2) do not divide
people along management-union lines; and (3) obliging the District to bargain thereon would
significantly infringe its management rights. We are not persuaded.
Applying the Board's Anaheim, supra, PERB Decision N 177 test, we first conclude
that the type of evidence an employer relies on or is permitted to use to substantiate employee
performance evaluations is logically and reasonably related to evaluation procedures, which is
an enumerated term and condition of employment in EERA section 3543.2(a). The same can
be said for evidence that an employer may rely on for imposing discipline. Using surveillance
cameras to monitor employees at work, or their coming and going, and potentially using the
product of that surveillance in disciplinary proceedings is logically and reasonably related to
Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177 (Anaheim),
approved in San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bad. (1983)
33 C 3d 850, the Board adopted a three-part test for the scope of representation under EERA
section 3543.2, as follows: A subject is within the scope of representation if: (1) it is logically
and reasonably related to wages, hours, or an enumerated term and condition of employment;
(2) the subject is of such concern to management and employees that conflict is likely to occur,
and the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is the appropriate means of resolving the
conflict; and (3) the employer's obligation to negotiate would not significantly abridge its
freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy)
essential to the achievement of the district's mission.
14
creation
of
video records
of
the work place and the workers -- records not previously available
to the District and its managers and supervisors for monitoring, reviewing and assessing
employee performance. It is these new video records and their potential use in monitoring,
evaluating and disciplining employees which concerns CSEA.
The District contends that the "type
of
evidence" it uses for evaluation and discipline
of
employees is not a matter within the scope
of
representation. Relying on PERB' s EERA scope
of
representation test, 6 the District urges that video records created by the surveillance
cameras: (1) are not logically or reasonably related to wages, hours or an enumerated
term
or
condition
of
employment and that PERB has never ruled to the contrary; (2) do not divide
people along management-union lines; and (3) obliging the District to bargain thereon
would
significantly infringe its management rights. We are not persuaded.
Applying the Board's Anaheim, supra, PERB Decision No. o. 177 test, we first conclude
that the type
of
evidence an employer relies on or is permitted to use to substantiate employee
performance evaluations is logically and reasonably related to evaluation procedures, which is
an enumerated term and condition
of
employment in EERA section 3543.2(a). The same can
be said for evidence that an employer may rely on for imposing discipline. Using surveillance
cameras to monitor employees at work, or their coming and going, and potentially using the
product
of
that surveillance in disciplinary proceedings is logically and reasonably related to
InIn Anaheim Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177 (Anaheim),
approved in San Mateo City School Dist.
v.
Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983)
33 Cal. al. 3d 850, the Board adopted a three-part test for the scope
of
representation under EERA
section 3543.2, as follows: A subject is within the scope
of
representation if: (1) it is logically
and reasonably related to wages, hours, or an enumerated term and condition
of
employment;
(2) the subject is of such concern to management and employees that conflict is likely to occur,
and the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is the appropriate means of resolving the
conflict; and (3) the employer's obligation to negotiate would not significantly abridge its
freedom to exercise those managerial prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy)
essential to the achievement of the district's mission.
14

disciplinary procedures, a matter which has been held to be within the scope of representation.
(Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision 2262 (Fairfield-Suisun);
Arvin Union School District (1983) PERB Decision N 300; Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra,
PERB Decision
255 (San Bernardino).) We have held that employer policies or workplace rules
concerned with monitoring employee internet usage are negotiable. (Trustees of the California
State University (2003) PERB Decision 1507-H (Trustees CSU); State of California
(Water Resources Control Board) (1999) PERB Decision
We conclude as well that using surveillance cameras to monitor employees is of
concern to employees and management, and may lead to disagreements over whether and how
to use the video records of employee observations in evaluations or disciplinary proceedings.
Employees and employers are interested in the types, sources and reliability of evidence that
the employer may use in evaluating and disciplining employees, as well as in the availability to
the union and employees of existing records which may contradict eye-witness or other
employer evidence. Video, created in real time and ostensibly portraying what "really
happened," can be highly persuasive, even inflammatory, viz., the camera "does not lie." Yet
the reliability of video turns on factors such as lighting, camera angle and/or security protocols
for making, storing and accessing the video record. Video may be proffered merely to
corroborate other first-hand accounts or may instead serve as the sole evidence of conduct not
otherwise directly observed. These and related matters interest employees and employers, and
meeting and negotiating is an appropriate means to resolve inherent conflict.
15
disciplinary procedures, a matter which has been held to be within the scope of representation.
(Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. No. 2262 (Fairfield-Suisun);
Arvin Union School District (1983) PERB Decision No. o. 300; Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra,
PERB Decision No. No. 375; San Bernardino City Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision 375,· San Bernardino City Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision
No. No. 255 (San Bernardino).) We have held that employer policies or workplace rules
concerned with monitoring employee internet usage are negotiable. (Trustees of the California
State University (2003) PERB Decision No. No. 1507-H (Trustees CSU); State of California
(Water Resources Control Board) (1999) PERB Decision No. No. 1337-S.) We deem surveillance 1337-S.) We deem surveillance
camera monitoring of employee compliance with workplace rules to present the same camera monitoring of employee compliance with workplace rules to present the same
concerns. concerns.
We conclude as well that using surveillance cameras to monitor employees is of
concern to employees and management, and may lead to disagreements over whether and how
to use the video records of employee observations in evaluations or disciplinary proceedings.
Employees and employers are interested in the types, sources and reliability of evidence that
the employer may use in evaluating and disciplining employees, as well as in the availability to
the union and employees of existing records which may contradict eye-witness or other
employer evidence. Video, created in real time and ostensibly portraying what "really
happened," can be highly persuasive, even inflammatory, viz., the camera "does not lie." Yet
the reliability of video turns on factors such as lighting, camera angle and/or security protocols
for making, storing and accessing the video record. Video may be proffered merely to
corroborate other first-hand accounts or may instead serve as the sole evidence of conduct not
otherwise directly observed. These and related matters interest employees and employers, and
meeting and negotiating is an appropriate means to resolve inherent conflict.
15

We conclude that requiring negotiation over the effects on performance evaluations and
potential discipline flowing from the District's decision to install security cameras would not
significantly abridge the exercise of managerial prerogatives essential to the achievement of
the employer's mission. PERB and California courts have found that fundamental managerial
or policy decisions include layoffs, ' contracting out, background investigations required by
statute, policies for police officer discharge of firearms, "and police review procedures."In
contrast, making and using video recordings of employees for purposes of disciplining them
and/or evaluating their work performance affects wages, hours and other terms and conditions
of employment within the scope of representation, not fundamental managerial or policy
matters concerning the nature and quality of public services. As such, these effects of video
We find unconvincing the District's assertion that negotiating with CSEA over
limitations on its claimed unfettered discretion to utilize video records in discipline and
evaluation of employees would abridge significantly its freedom to exercise those managerial
prerogatives essential to the achievement of the District's mission." The obligation to
ewman-Crows Landing, supra, PERB Decision 223.
Building Material & Construction Teamsters' Union v. Farrell (1986) 41 C 	d 651.
Sutter County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2007) PERB Decision
San Jose Peace Officers' Assn. v. City of San Jose (1978) 78 C 	App.3d 935.
" Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley (1977) 76 	A
2 Nothing in this decision is intended to restrict a public entity's decision to institute
surveillance of non-employees, such as students or other members of the public for security
purposes, as EERA's jurisdiction reaches only to matters concerning employment relations.
To the extent surveillance by a public entity implicates statutory or constitutional interests of
non-employees, or of employees not covered by EERA, those issues must be determined in a
different forum.
16
We conclude that requiring negotiation over the effects on performance evaluations and
potential discipline flowing from the District's decision to install security cameras would not
significantly abridge the exercise
of
managerial prerogatives essential
to
the achievement
of
the employer's mission. PERB and California courts have found that fundamental managerial
or policy decisions include layoffs,7 contracting out,8 background investigations required by
statute,9 policies for police officer discharge
of
firearms, 10
and police review procedures.
11
In
contrast, making and using video recordings
of
employees for purposes
of
disciplining them
and/or evaluating their work performance affects wages, hours and other terms and conditions
of
employment within the scope
of
representation, not fundamental managerial or policy
matters concerning the nature and quality
of
public services. As such, these effects
of
video
surveillance of employees are negotiable.	surveillance
of
employees are negotiable.
We find unconvincing the District's assertion that negotiating with CSEA over
limitations on its claimed unfettered discretion to utilize video records in discipline and
evaluation
of
employees would abridge significantly its freedom to exercise those managerial
prerogatives essential to the achievement
of
the District's mission.
12
The obligation to
"NNewman-Crows Landing, supra, PERB Decision 223.
8 Building Material & Construction Teamsters' Union
v.
Farrell (1986)
41
Cal	al.3.3d 651.
9 Sutter County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2007) PERB Decision
No.	No. 1900-M.	1900-M.
10 San Jose Peace Officers' Assn.
v.
City
of
San Jose (1978) 78 Cal.	al. App.3d 935.
11
Berkeley Police Assn.
v.
City
of
Berkeley (1977) 76 Cal.	Cal.App.3d	pp.3d 931.	931.
12 Nothing in this decision is intended to restrict a public entity's decision to institute
surveillance of non-employees, such as students or other members of the public for security
purposes, as EERA's jurisdiction reaches only to matters concerning employment relations.
To the extent surveillance by a public entity implicates statutory or constitutional interests of
non-employees, or of employees not covered by EERA, those issues must be determined in a
different forum.
16

negotiate requires parties "to make a good faith effort to reach agreement." (Lucia Mar
Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision 1440, PD, p. 45.) Thus, were CSEA to
propose limitations on use of video footage of employees, the District would be obliged to
negotiate in good faith, viz., "make a mutual effort to find solutions to mutual problems," and
in the event of impasse to participate in good faith in EERA impasse resolution procedures.
(Ibid.) If such good faith efforts produced no agreement, the District would retain discretion to
implement its last, best and final offer regarding the use of video records for discipline and
evaluation of employees to the extent otherwise permitted by law.
In sum, we hold that an employer decision to install security surveillance cameras in
areas where employees work or take breaks has reasonably foreseeable effects on discipline
and performance evaluations, both matters within the scope of representation. Such effects
include, without limitation, disciplining and/or evaluating employees in reliance upon
employee conduct observed or recorded by use of the surveillance cameras.
4. District's claim that the ALJ failed to provide any analysis on how the purported effects
impact the terms and conditions of employment.
The District contends that the PD is flawed because: (1) it fails to discuss "actual
impact" of the installation and use of surveillance cameras on CSEA's unit members terms and
conditions of employment, relying on San Francisco Unified School District (2009) PERB
Decision 2048 (San Francisco); and (2) it fails to explain how the installation of the
cameras would create "new grounds" for discipline or "new procedures" for evaluation.
(District's Brief ISO Exceptions, at pp. 15-16.) We disagree.
We hold that a prima facie case of refusal to engage in effects bargaining does not
include a demonstration of these matters, and therefore the ALJ's failure to discuss them is of
no moment. We explain.
17
negotiate requires parties "to make a good faith effort to reach agreement." (Lucia Mar
Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. No. 1440, PD, p. 45.) Thus, were CSEA to
propose limitations on use of video footage of employees, the District would be obliged to
negotiate in good faith, viz., "make a mutual effort to find solutions to mutual problems," and
in the event of impasse to participate in good faith in EERA impasse resolution procedures.
(Ibid.) If such good faith efforts produced no agreement, the District would retain discretion to
implement its last, best and final offer regarding the use of video records for discipline and
evaluation of employees to the extent otherwise permitted by law.
In sum, we hold that an employer decision to install security surveillance cameras in
areas where employees work or take breaks has reasonably foreseeable effects on discipline
and performance evaluations, both matters within the scope of representation. Such effects
include, without limitation, disciplining and/or evaluating employees in reliance upon
employee conduct observed or recorded by use of the surveillance cameras.
4. District's claim that the ALJ failed to provide any analysis on how the purported effects
impact the terms and conditions of employment.
The District contends that the PD is flawed because: (1) it fails to discuss "actual
impact" of the installation and use of surveillance cameras on CSEA's unit members terms and
conditions of employment, relying on San Francisco Unified School District (2009) PERB
Decision No. No. 2048 (San Francisco); and (2) it fails to explain how the installation of the
cameras would create "new grounds" for discipline or "new procedures" for evaluation.
(District's BriefISO Exceptions, at pp. 15-16.) We disagree.
We hold that a prima facie case of refusal to engage in effects bargaining does not
include a demonstration of these matters, and therefore the ALJ' s failure to discuss them is of
no moment. We explain.
17

The duty to provide notice and an opportunity bargain over negotiable effects of an
otherwise non-negotiable decision arises when the decision is firmly made. (CSU, supra,
PERB Decision 2287-H; Mt. Diablo, supra, PERB Decision 373.) A
e" in matters within the scope of representation made without
affording the union notice or an opportunity to bargain.
In CSU, supra, PERB Decision N 2287-H we ruled that when assessing a charge of
failure to negotiate over effects of a non-negotiable decision, the proper focus is on
prospective, not actual, impact. We there reviewed and disavowed prior Board decisions, to
the extent they require a charging party to establish "actual impact" when alleging failure or
refusal to bargain over negotiable effects." For the reasons outlined in CSU, supra, PERB
N 2048.
In San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision N 2048, the Board considered the dismissal
of a charge alleging a unilateral change in the location where certain special education aides
were to report for duty. The charge alleged that the change implicated working hours of those
employees whose new location required them to travel a greater distance from home to work,
and cited an example of one such employee. The Board determined that commute time was
To establish a unilateral change, the charging party must allege and prove that:
(1) the employer implemented a change in policy or terms and conditions of employment;
(2) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to
bargain over the change; (3) the action is not merely an isolated incident, but amounts to a
change of policy (i.e., having a generalized effect or continuing impact upon bargaining unit
members' terms and conditions of employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a
matter within the scope of representation. (Walnut Valley Unified School District (1981)
PERB Decision N 160; Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision
14 CSU, supra, PERB Decision
18
The duty to provide notice and an opportunity bargain over negotiable effects
of
an
otherwise non-negotiable decision arises when the decision is firmly made. (CSU, supra,
PERB Decision No. No. 2287-H;
Mt.
Diablo, supra, PERB Decision 373.) Att that time thethat time the
impacts are prospective, not actual. By contrast, "actual impact" becomes relevant only where impacts are prospective, not actual. By contrast, "actual impact" becomes relevant only where
a union alleges a unilateral chang a union alleges a unilateral change
No. No.
13
in matters within the scope
of
representation made without
affording the union notice or an opportunity to bargain.
In CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. o. 2287-H we ruled that when assessing a charge
of
failure to negotiate over effects
of
a non-negotiable decision, the proper focus is on
prospective, not actual, impact. We there reviewed and disavowed prior Board decisions, to
the extent they require a charging party to establish "actual impact" when alleging failure or
refusal to bargain over negotiable effects.
14
For the reasons outlined in CSU, supra, PERB
Decision Decision No. No. PERB2287-H, we likewise disavow similar provision in San Francisco, supra, PERB 2287-H, we likewise disavow similar provision in San Francisco, supra,
Decision Decision No. o. 2048.
In San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision No. o. 2048, the Board considered the dismissal
of
a charge alleging a unilateral change in the location where certain special education aides
were to report for duty. The charge alleged that the change implicated working hours
of
those
employees whose new location required them to travel a greater distance from home to work,
and cited an example
of
one such employee. The Board determined that commute time was
13
To establish a unilateral change, the charging party must allege and prove that:
(1) the employer implemented a change in policy or terms and conditions
of
employment;
(2) the action was taken without giving the exclusive representative notice or an opportunity to
bargain over the change; (3) the action is not merely an isolated incident, but amounts to a
change
of
policy (i.e., having a generalized effect or continuing impact upon bargaining unit
members' terms and conditions of employment); and (4) the change in policy concerns a
matter within the scope
of
representation. (Walnut Valley Unified School District (1981)
PERB Decision No. o. 160; Grant Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision
No. No. 196.) 196.)
14
CSU, supra, PERB Decision
18
No. No. 2287-H, at p. 17. 2287-H, at p. 17.

not a term or condition of employment, and rejected the union's contention on appeal that the
change in reporting location was also related to another enumerated subject, viz., transfer or
reassignment. The Board held, ultimately, that the allegation of change in reporting location
did not concern a matter within the scope of representation, and, accordingly, there was no
duty to negotiate over the decision itself and thus no unlawful unilateral change when the
decision was implemented.
On appeal the union supplemented is allegations, claiming that the change in reporting
location also forced employees to begin paying for parking, which prior to the location change
had been provided by the employer without charge, and that the parking costs implicated
wages. The Board refused to consider this new allegation, as the union failed to explain why it
had not raised the issue earlier. However, the Board nonetheless discussed whether the union's
new allegation about parking costs articulated a negotiable effect of the employer's change in
reporting location. Because the union had not alleged that any employee "actually" paid for
parking at the new reporting location, the Board deemed the union's parking claim inadequate
to establish a negotiable effect. The Board relied on Beverly Hills, supra, PERB Decision
1639 in
holding that an alleged failure to bargain over negotiable effects must state "facts establishing
an actual impact on employees' terms and conditions of employment." (San Francisco, supra,
PERB Decision N 	2048 [emphasis added].)
As we held in CSU, supra, PERB Decision N 	2287-H, a prima facie case of refusal to
negotiate over the effects of a non-negotiable decision does not require a showing of "actual
impact" upon a matter within the scope of representation, but merely a reasonably foreseeable
prospective impact. We disavow here that portion of San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision
19
not a term or condition of employment, and rejected the union's contention on appeal that the
change in reporting location was also related to another enumerated subject, viz., transfer or
reassignment. The Board held, ultimately, that the allegation of change in reporting location
did not concern a matter within the scope of representation, and, accordingly, there was no
duty to negotiate over the decision itself and thus no unlawful unilateral change when the
decision was implemented.
On appeal the union supplemented is allegations, claiming that the change in reporting
location also forced employees to begin paying for parking, which prior to the location change
had been provided by the employer without charge, and that the parking costs implicated
wages. The Board refused to consider this new allegation, as the union failed to explain why it
had not raised the issue earlier. However, the Board nonetheless discussed whether the union's
new allegation about parking costs articulated a negotiable effect of the employer's change in
reporting location. Because the union had not alleged that any employee "actually" paid for
parking at the new reporting location, the Board deemed the union's parking claim inadequate
to establish a negotiable effect. The Board relied on Beverly Hills, supra, PERB Decision
No.	No. 1969-E and Salinas Union High School District (2004) PERB Decision	1969-E and Salinas Union High School District (2004) PERB Decision No.	No. 1639 in
holding that an alleged failure to bargain over negotiable effects must state "facts establishing
an actual impact on employees' terms and conditions of employment." (San Francisco, supra,
PERB Decision No.	o. 2048 [emphasis added].)
As we held in CSU, supra, PERB Decision
No.	No.
2287-H, a prima facie case of refusal to
negotiate over the effects of a non-negotiable decision does not require a showing of "actual
impact" upon a matter within the scope of representation, but merely a reasonably foreseeable
prospective impact. 	We disavow here that portion of San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision
No.	o.
19
2048 which purports to require an allegation of "actual impact."	2048 which purports to require an allegation of "actual impact."

We turn now to the District's contention that the ALJ failed to explain how the
installation of the cameras would create "new grounds" for discipline or "new procedures" for
evaluation. We consider this contention just a variant of the prior claim, to wit, that the ALJ
failed to discuss the "actual impact" of the installation and use of surveillance cameras on
CSEA's unit members' terms and conditions of employment. Relying on our analysis of that
issue, we conclude that a charging party may state a prima facie case of refusal to negotiate
over the effects on discipline and evaluation procedures of a firm decision to install
surveillance cameras, without alleging that the employer has created either new grounds for
discipline or new evaluation procedures. We explain.
When assessing whether a firm decision has negotiable effects, the parties and PERB
do so prospectively. A union seeking to negotiate the effects of a decision not yet
implemented, must anticipate the effects. The installation of surveillance cameras has
reasonably foreseeable consequences on discipline and evaluations, including without
limitation the observation and monitoring of employees remotely by the employer and the use
of such observations, and records thereof, in disciplinary and evaluation decisions and
procedures. Thus, it is not necessary for CSEA to establish with certainty that the District
actually established new grounds for discipline, or new evaluation procedures. Rather, it is
sufficient to trigger the duty to bargain that use of the surveillance cameras has a foreseeable
effect on discipline and evaluation by affording the District and CSEA's unit members alike a
source of evidence concerning employee workplace conduct.
5. District's claim that cases relied on by the ALJ are distinguishable.
The District urges that two PERB decisions and one National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) decision cited by the ALJ in the PD are inapplicable and or inapposite. We disagree.
20
We turn now
to
the District's contention that the ALJ failed to explain how the
installation
of
the cameras would create "new grounds" for discipline or "new procedures" for
evaluation. We consider this contention just a variant
of
the prior claim,
to
wit, that the ALJ
failed to discuss the "actual impact"
of
the installation and use
of
surveillance cameras on
CSEA's unit members' terms and conditions
of
employment. Relying on our analysis
of
that
issue, we conclude that a charging party may state a prima facie case
of
refusal to negotiate
over the effects on discipline and evaluation procedures
of
a firm decision to install
surveillance cameras, without alleging that the employer has created either new grounds for
discipline or new evaluation procedures. We explain.
When assessing whether a firm decision has negotiable effects, the parties and PERB
do so prospectively. A union seeking to negotiate the effects
of
a decision not yet
implemented, must anticipate the effects. The installation
of
surveillance cameras has
reasonably foreseeable consequences on discipline and evaluations, including without
limitation the observation and monitoring
of
employees remotely by the employer and the use
of
such observations, and records thereof, in disciplinary and evaluation decisions and
procedures. Thus, it is not necessary for CSEA to establish with certainty that the District
actually established new grounds for discipline, or new evaluation procedures. Rather, it is
sufficient to trigger the duty to bargain that use
of
the surveillance cameras has a foreseeable
effect on discipline and evaluation by affording the District and CSEA's unit members alike a
source
of
evidence concerning employee workplace conduct.
5. District's claim that cases relied on by the ALJ are distinguishable.
The District urges that two PERB decisions and one National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) decision cited by the ALJ in the PD are inapplicable and or inapposite. We disagree.
20

The Board decisions cited by the ALJ hold, respectively, that discipline criteria and
procedures and evaluation procedures are matters within the scope of representation.
(San Bernardino, supra, PERB Decision 	255
N 	347 [evaluation procedures
negotiable].) It is for that principle that they were cited by the ALJ. We find no basis to
disturb the ALJ's reliance on these cases.
We likewise conclude that the ALJ relied properly on NLRB authority finding
negotiable an employer's use of surveillance cameras in the work place. (Colgate-Palmolive
Co. (1997) 323 NLRB 515.) The District distinguishes this NLRB decision on the ground that
the surveillance cameras in question were hidden and that the premises in question were
private. We conclude such distinctions (overt vs. covert cameras, and public vs. private
premises) are of no moment when assessing whether workplace surveillance of employees
presents issues appropriate for meeting and negotiating the effects of an employer's decision to
install security cameras. A public or private employer may use an overt camera covertly, by
operating the camera on an undisclosed schedule, monitoring only certain employees, or
recording only selected persons or events. Likewise, although both employer and employee
15 We note that other PERB decisions also support the result reached by the ALJ that
installation of surveillance cameras has negotiable effects on discipline and evaluations.
(Jefferson School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 133 [nature of material to be used for
evaluation negotiable]; Walnut Valley Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision. N 	289
[criteria and procedures for evaluation negotiable]; Trustees of the California State University
(2001) PERB Decision N 	1451-H [mandatory employee name tags negotiable]; Trustees
CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. 1507-H [monitoring employee computer use negotiable];
Fairfield-Suisun, supra, PERB Decision N 	2262 [zero tolerance of failure or refusal to
submit to drug test negotiable].)
1 When construing California public sector labor relations statutes, California courts
and PERB rely on NLRB and judicial decisions construing similar language in the National
Labor Relations Act. (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983)
33 Cal.3d 850; Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
21
The Board decisions cited by the ALJ hold, respectively, that discipline criteria and
procedures and evaluation procedures are matters within the scope of representation.
(San Bernardino, supra, PERB Decision 	255	No.	No. 	[criteria and procedures for discipline	[criteria and procedures for discipline
negotiable]; Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Decision	negotiable]; Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Decision No.	o. 347 [evaluation procedures
negotiable].) It is for that principle that they were cited by the ALJ. We find no basis to
disturb the ALJ' s reliance on these cases. 15
We likewise conclude that the ALJ relied properly on NLRB authority16 finding
negotiable an employer's use of surveillance cameras in the work place. (Colgate-Palmolive
Co. (1997) 323 NLRB 515.) The District distinguishes this NLRB decision on the ground that
the surveillance cameras in question were hidden and that the premises in question were
private. 	We conclude such distinctions (overt vs. covert cameras, and public vs. private
premises) are of no moment when assessing whether workplace surveillance of employees
presents issues appropriate for meeting and negotiating the effects of an employer's decision to
install security cameras. A public or private employer may use an overt camera covertly, by
operating the camera on an undisclosed schedule, monitoring only certain employees, or
recording only selected persons or events. Likewise, although both employer and employee
15 We note that other PERB decisions also support the result reached by the ALJ that
installation of surveillance cameras has negotiable effects on discipline and evaluations.
(Jefferson School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 133 [nature of material to be used for
evaluation negotiable]; Walnut Valley Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision. No.	o. 	289
[criteria and procedures for evaluation negotiable]; Trustees of the California State University
(2001) PERB Decision No.	o. 	1451-H [mandatory employee name tags negotiable]; Trustees
CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. 1507-H [monitoring employee computer use negotiable];
Fairfield-Suisun, supra, PERB Decision No.	o. 	2262 [zero tolerance of failure or refusal to
submit to drug test negotiable].)
16 When construing California public sector labor relations statutes, California courts
and PERB rely on NLRB and judicial decisions construing similar language in the National
Labor Relations Act. (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983)
33 Cal.3d 850; Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
21

expectations of privacy may differ depending on the location within the workplace (e.g.,
bathrooms versus reception areas), workplace surveillance in both the public and private
sector, using either hidden or overt cameras, is driven by a perceived need to enforce the
employer's rules for employee conduct. Workplace surveillance cameras on both public and
private property implicate the same concerns, viz., the nature and extent of video records
documenting a particular employee's workplace conduct, the reliability of such records, and
access to or use of such records when making, substantiating or rebutting a disciplinary or
evaluatingecision affecting an individual employee.
CONCLUSION
We hold that by refusing to bargain over the effects of a decision to install security
surveillance cameras, the District violated EERA section 3543.5(c). We hold that this conduct
likewise denied to employees their right to participate in an employee organization for the
purpose of representation, thereby violating EERA section 3543.5(a), and that this conduct
likewise denied to CSEA, an employee organization, rights to represent employees in their
employment relations with the District, thereby violating EERA section 3543.5(b).
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in the
case, it is found that the Rio Hondo Community College District (District) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code section 3540 et seq., by
refusing to bargain with the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 477
(CSEA) about the effects of a decision to install security cameras.
Pursuant to section 3541.5(c) of the Government Code, it hereby is ORDERED that the
District, its governing board and its representatives shall:
22
expectations
of
privacy may differ depending on the location within the workplace (e.g.,
bathrooms versus reception areas), workplace surveillance in both the public and private
sector, using either hidden or overt cameras, is driven by a perceived need to enforce the
employer's rules for employee conduct. Workplace surveillance cameras on both public and
private property implicate the same concerns, viz., the nature and extent
of
video records
documenting a particular employee's workplace conduct, the reliability
of
such records, and
access to or use
of
such records when making, substantiating or rebutting a disciplinary
or
evaluative decision affecting an individual employee.
CONCLUSION
22
We hold that by refusing to bargain over the effects
of
a decision to install security
surveillance cameras, the District violated EERA section 3543.S(c). We hold that this conduct
likewise denied to employees their right to participate in an employee organization for the
purpose
of
representation, thereby violating EERA section 3543.S(a), and that this conduct
likewise denied to CSEA, an employee organization, rights to represent employees in their
employment relations with the District, thereby violating EERA section 3543.S(b
).
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings
of
fact and conclusions
of
law, and the entire record in the
case, it is found that the Rio Hondo Community College District (District) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code section 3540 et seq., by
refusing to bargain with the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 4 77
(CSEA) about the effects of a decision to install security cameras.
Pursuant to section 3541.S(c) of the Government Code, it hereby is ORDERED that the
District, its governing board and its representatives shall:

A. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Refusing to bargain with CSEA about the effects on employee discipline and
performance evaluations of the District's decision to install security cameras.
B. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF EERA:
1 . Bargain with CSEA upon request about the effects on employee
discipline and performance evaluations of the District's decision to install security cameras.
2. Within ten (10) workdays of the service of a final decision in this matter,
post at all work locations where notices to employees in the District customarily are posted,
copies of the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an
authorized agent of the District, 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.
3. Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board, or the General
Counsel's designee. The District shall provide reports, in writing, as directed by the General
Counsel or his/her designee. All reports regarding compliance with this Order shall be
concurrently served on CSEA.
Chair Martinez and Member Winslow joined in this Decision.
23
A. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
23
Refusing to bargain with CSEA about the effects on employee discipline and
performance evaluations
of
the District's decision to install security cameras.
B.
TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF EERA:
1.
Bargain with CSEA upon request about the effects on employee
discipline and performance evaluations
of
the District's decision to install security cameras.
2.
Within ten (10) workdays
of
the service
of
a final decision in this matter,
post at all work locations where notices to employees in the District customarily are posted,
copies
of
the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an
authorized agent
of
the District, 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.
3.
Written notification
of
the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel
of
the Public Employment Relations Board, or the General
Counsel's designee. The District shall provide reports, in writing, as directed by the General
Counsel or his/her designee. All reports regarding compliance with this Order shall be
concurrently served on CSEA.
Chair Martinez and Member Winslow joined in this Decision.

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. LA-CE-5389-E, in which all parties had the
right to participate, it has been found that the Rio Hondo Community College District (District)
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code section 3540
et seq., by refusing to bargain with the California School Employees Association & its
Chapter 477 (CSEA) about the effects of a decision to install security cameras.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1 . Refusing to bargain with CSEA about the effects on employee discipline
and performance evaluations of the District's decision to install security cameras.
TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF EERA:
1 . Bargain with CSEA upon request about the effects on employee
discipline and performance evaluations of the District's decision to install security cameras.
Dated: RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
By:
Authorized Agent
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.
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. LA-CE-5389-E, in which all parties had the
right to participate, it has been found that the Rio Hondo Community College District (District)
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code section 3 540
et seq., by refusing to bargain with the California School Employees Association & its
Chapter 477 (CSEA) about the effects of a decision to install security cameras.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. Refusing to bargain with CSEA about the effects on employee discipline
and performance evaluations of the District's decision to install security cameras.
B. B. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF EERA:
1. Bargain with CSEA upon request about the effects on employee
discipline and performance evaluations of the District's decision to install security cameras.
Dated: --------- RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
By: --------------
Authorized Agent
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, DEF ACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND ITS CHAPTER 477,
UNFAIR PRACTICE
Charging Party, CASE NO. LA-CE-5389-E
v . PROPOSED DECISION
(September 16, 2011)
RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Appearances: Brian Lawler, Labor Relations Representative, for California School Employees
Association and its Chapter 477; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Mary L. Dowell and
Adrianna E. Guzman, Attorneys, for Rio Hondo Community College District.
Before Thomas J. Allen, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In this case, a union alleges that an employer refused to bargain the effects of a decision
to install security cameras in violation of Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)
section 3543.5(c).' The employer denies any violation.
The California School Employees Association and its Chapter 477 (CSEA) filed an
unfair practice charge against the Rio Hondo Community College District (District) on
October 12, 2009. The Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB) issued an unfair practice complaint against the District on June 3, 2010. The
District filed an answer to the complaint on June 17, 2010.
PERB held an informal settlement conference on September 15, 2010, but the case was
not settled. PERB held a formal hearing on May 2, 2011. With the receipt of post-hearing
briefs on July 5, 2011, the case was submitted for decision.
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND ITS CHAPTER 477,
Charging Party,
V.
RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT,
Respondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. LA-CE-5389-E
PROPOSED DECISION
(September 16, 2011)
Appearances: Brian Lawler, Labor Relations Representative, for California School Employees
Association and its Chapter 477; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Mary
L.
Dowell and
Adrianna E. Guzman, Attorneys, for Rio Hondo Community College District.
Before Thomas
J.
Allen, Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In this case, a union alleges that an employer refused to bargain the effects
of
a decision
to install security cameras in violation
of
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)
section 3543.5(c). 1 The employer denies any violation.
The California School Employees Association and its Chapter 477 (CSEA) filed an
unfair practice charge against the Rio Hondo Community College District (District) on
October 12, 2009. The Office
of
the General Counsel
of
the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB) issued an unfair practice complaint against the District on June 3, 2010. The
District filed an answer to the complaint on June 17, 2010.
PERB held an informal settlement conference on September 15, 2010, but the case was
not settled. PERB held a formal hearing on May 2, 2011. With the receipt of post-hearing
briefs on July 5, 2011, the case was submitted for decision.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The District is a public school employer under EERA, and CSEA is an exclusive
representative under EERA.
On April 16, 2009, at a labor relations meeting, the District informed CSEA of its intent
to install security cameras in its new Learning Resource Center (LRC). The minutes of the
meeting state in part:
[District Vice President of Finance] Teresa [Dreyfuss] showed
[CSEA Chapter President] Lisa [Sandoval] where cameras will
be installed, only in hallways away from personnel work
station [sic].
15t floor-2 outside, 4 inside in hallways.
loor-1 reading room, 2 stairs
Rationale for cameras: theft, vandalism of the LRC and to protect
District property and assets.
The District later expanded its plans to include the installation of security cameras in its
parking lots.
In the LRC, the cameras would show CSEA unit members (as well as members of the
public, the student body and the faculty) coming and going during the workday. At least one
camera would show unit members entering and leaving an employee break room. When unit
members were cleaning public areas of the LRC, the cameras would show them at work. In the
parking lots, the cameras would show unit members at work maintaining outdoor areas.
In June 2009, CSEA sent the District a letter stating:
This is a formal request by CSEA Chapter #477 at your district to
negotiate over the decision and effects of the District's stated
intent to install surveillance cameras in select areas on the
College campus.
Specifically, CSEA has learned that it is the intention of the
District to install surveillance monitoring cameras in the new
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
The District is a public school employer under EERA, and CSEA is an exclusive
representative under EERA.
On April 16, 2009, at a labor relations meeting, the District informed CSEA
of
its intent
to install security cameras in its new Learning Resource Center (LRC). The minutes
of
the
meeting state in part:
[District Vice President
of
Finance] Teresa [Dreyfuss] showed
[CSEA Chapter President] Lisa [Sandoval] where cameras will
be installed, only in hallways away from personnel work
station [sic].
1st floor-2 outside, 4 inside in hallways.
nd
2"d f	2 	floor-I reading room, 2 stairs
Rationale for cameras: theft, vandalism
of
the LRC and to protect
District property and assets.
The District later expanded its plans to include the installation
of
security cameras in its
parking lots.
In the LRC, the cameras would show CSEA unit members (as well as members
of
the
public, the student body and the faculty) coming and going during the workday. 	At least one
camera would show unit members entering and leaving an employee break room. 	When unit
members were cleaning public areas
of
the LRC, the cameras would show them
at
work. 	In the
parking lots, the cameras would show unit members at work maintaining outdoor areas.
In June 2009, CSEA sent the District a letter stating:
This is a formal request by CSEA Chapter #477 at your district to
negotiate over the decision and effects
of
the District's stated
intent to install surveillance cameras in select areas on the
College campus.
Specifically, CSEA has learned that it is the intention of the
District to install surveillance monitoring cameras in the new
2

Learning Resources Center/Library. The decision to install such
cameras in areas where CSEA members work impacts the
working conditions of our members, including performance
evaluations and potential discipline, and is a matter within the
scope of bargaining.
Regarding CSEA's request to negotiate over the surveillance
cameras, it is not CSEA's intention to prevent the District from
using such cameras but rather to ensure that the District does not
use the cameras to monitor CSEA bargaining unit employees
while they are at work and for the District to use footage or video
images to evaluate, monitor and/or potentially attempt to
discipline classified employees.
CSEA requests that the District contact Chapter President, Lisa
Sandoval, to schedule a date for negotiation of this matter. CSEA
further requests that the District not implement any aspect of the
camera surveillance unless and until the District has completed its
bargaining obligation. Thank you for your cooperation.
CSEA looks forward to a cooperative and constructive set of
negotiations on this difficult topic.
At a labor relations meeting on June 30, 2009, the District responded that the issue was not
negotiable. The minutes of that meeting state in part:
The District stated that this item is not negotiable but is willing to
discuss the matter. Placed legal reason on the agenda (privacy) as
to why District believes this..... [Ellipsis in the original.]
CSEA requests that an MOU [Memorandum of Understanding]
be signed with the District not to use cameras to evaluate or
discipline CSEA employees and that this information be placed in
writing to protect employees. [District Director of Human
Resources] Yolanda [Emerson] asked if a classified employee is
viewed stealing on the campus do they have immunity? Will the
District not have the right to discipline/terminate because of an
MOU?
CSEA states that other colleges have MOU agreements with
District regarding the use of cameras. CSEA will get copies of
agreements between Districts and the unions used in other
Districts.
Matter discussed:
w
Learning Resources Center/Library. The decision to install such
cameras in areas where CSEA members work impacts the
working conditions
of
our members, including performance
evaluations and potential discipline, and is a matter within the
scope
of
bargaining.
Regarding CSEA's request to negotiate over the surveillance
cameras, it is not CSEA's intention to prevent the District from
using such cameras but rather to ensure that the District does not
use the cameras to monitor CSEA bargaining unit employees
while they are at work and for the District to use footage or video
images to evaluate, monitor and/or potentially attempt to
discipline classified employees.
3
CSEA requests that the District contact Chapter President, Lisa
Sandoval, to schedule a date for negotiation
of
this matter. CSEA
further requests that the District not implement any aspect
of
the
camera surveillance unless and until the District has completed its
bargaining obligation. Thank you for your cooperation.
CSEA looks forward to a cooperative and constructive set
of
negotiations on this difficult topic.
At a labor relations meeting on June 30, 2009, the District responded that the issue was
not
negotiable. The minutes
of
that meeting state in part:
The District stated that this item is not negotiable but is willing to
discuss the matter. Placed legal reason on the agenda (privacy) as
to why District believes this ..... [Ellipsis in the original.]
CSEA requests that an MOU [Memorandum
of
Understanding]
be signed with the District not to use cameras to evaluate or
discipline CSEA employees and that this information be placed in
writing to protect employees. [District Director
of
Human
Resources] Yolanda [Emerson] asked
if
a classified employee is
viewed stealing on the campus do they have immunity? Will the
District not have the right to discipline/terminate because
of
an
MOU?
CSEA states that other colleges have MOU agreements with
District regarding the use of cameras. CSEA will get copies of
agreements between Districts and the unions used in other
Districts.
Matter discussed:

1. 	Goal is to have a discussion so we can resolve
items and share comments.
Cameras used as pre-measurable matter for
preventable measures. Some employees in the
bargaining unit have a sense of mistrust for some
of the Administrators. CSEA Membership is
worried about Administration who are already
targeting employees and always checking their
whereabouts.
Both the District and the union agree on a common interest- we
need to work on identifying ways we can share information.
CSEA wants to know who is bonded and trained to look at this?
CSEA asked who is looking at this information and reporting it to
whom? Where will the information be retained and what will it
be used for?
For clarification and communication purposes, [District Vice
President of Academic Services] Paul [Parnell] explained the
current practices of the Security Department (security department
[sic] staff who have security concerns reports them to appropriate
supervisor(s).
In September 2009, CSEA provided the District an example of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on the subject. That MOU with a local school district provided:
1 . 	Effective upon the date of approval by the District and
ratification by CSEA, the parties agree to a pilot program
ending August 1, 2009, regarding the impact of the
District's use of video cameras on CSEA bargaining unit
employees.
2. 	As of July 2008, there are two cameras available which
are used on an as needed basis when there is an incident of
vandalism or criminal activity. Beginning in 2009, it is
anticipated that cameras will be installed on the exteriors
and hallways at all District campuses for the purpose of
deterring and recording vandalism, as well as other
criminal activity.
3. 	Tapes will only be reviewed when there is an incident of
vandalism or criminal activity. The sole purpose of
viewing these tapes is to determine the source of incidents
of vandalism or criminal activity. More specifically, they
1.	
Goal is to have a discussion
so
we can resolve
items and share comments.
2.	
Cameras used as pre-measurable matter for
preventable measures. Some employees in the
bargaining unit have a sense
of
mistrust for some
of
the Administrators. CSEA Membership is
worried about Administration who are already
targeting employees and always checking their
whereabouts.
Both the District and the union agree on a common interest- we
need to work on identifying ways we can share information.
CSEA wants to know who is bonded and trained to look at this?
CSEA asked who is looking at this information and reporting it to
whom? Where will the information be retained and what will it
be used for?
For clarification and communication purposes, [District Vice
President
of
Academic Services] Paul [Parnell] explained the
current practices
of
the Security Department (security department
[sic] staff who have security concerns reports them to appropriate
supervisor(s).
In September 2009, CSEA provided the District an example
of
a Memorandum
of
Understanding (MOU) on the subject. That MOU with a local school district provided:
1.	
Effective upon the date
of
approval by the District and
ratification by CSEA, the parties agree to a pilot program
ending August
1,
2009, regarding the impact
of
the
District's use
of
video cameras on CSEA bargaining unit
employees.
2. 	As of July 2008, there are two cameras available which
are used on an as needed basis when there is an incident of
vandalism or criminal activity. Beginning in 2009, it is
anticipated that cameras will be installed on the exteriors
and hallways at all District campuses for the purpose of
deterring and recording vandalism, as well as other
criminal activity.
3. 	Tapes will only be reviewed when there is an incident of
vandalism or criminal activity. The sole purpose of
viewing these tapes is to determine the source of incidents
of vandalism or criminal activity. More specifically, they
4

will be viewed from the date on which there is a
reasonable suspicion of alleged criminal activity or
vandalism, retroactive to the date the action reasonably
may have occurred (usually the period of review is not
more than 72 hours).
4. The District shall provide prior notice to CSEA of the
number and location of video cameras to be used.
5. When a District site has installed video cameras, signs
will be posted to notify students, parents, and all staff that
video recording may occur at exterior locations and
hallways at their site.
No camera will be installed where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy, in accordance with applicable law,
such as bathrooms or locker rooms.
7. The District's video cameras will not record sounds/audio.
8. During this pilot period, the District will not use video
footage to attempt to discipline CSEA bargaining unit
employees, and/or evaluate employee work performance,
except in the sole circumstance when the footage
reviewed suggests that a CSEA employee may be engaged
in an act of vandalism or criminal activity.
The District still maintained that the issue was not negotiable. The District was willing to
discuss the matter without negotiations, but CSEA was not.
ISSUE
Did the District unlawfully refuse to bargain effects?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In determining whether a party has violated EERA section 3543.5(c), PERB utilizes
either the "per se" or "totality of the conduct" test, depending on the specific conduct involved
and the effect of such conduct on the negotiating process. (Stockton Unified School District
(1980) PERB Decision 143.) Unilateral changes are considered "per se" violations if
certain criteria are met. Those criteria are: (1) the employer implemented a change in policy
will be viewed from the date on which there is a
reasonable suspicion of alleged criminal activity or
vandalism, retroactive to the date the action reasonably
may have occurred (usually the period of review is not
more than 72 hours).
4. The District shall provide prior notice to CSEA of the
number and location of video cameras to be used.
5. When a District site has installed video cameras, signs
will be posted to notify students, parents, and all staff that
video recording may occur at exterior locations and
hallways at their site.
6. 6. No camera will be installed where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy, in accordance with applicable law,
such as bathrooms or locker rooms.
7. The District's video cameras will not record sounds/audio.
8. During this pilot period, the District will not use video
footage to attempt to discipline CSEA bargaining unit
employees, and/or evaluate employee work performance,
except in the sole circumstance when the footage
reviewed suggests that a CSEA employee may be engaged
in an act of vandalism or criminal activity.
The District still maintained that the issue was not negotiable. The District was willing to
discuss the matter without negotiations, but CSEA was not.
ISSUE
Did the District unlawfully refuse to bargain effects?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In determining whether a party has violated EERA section 3543.S(c), PERB utilizes
either the "per se" or "totality of the conduct" test, depending on the specific conduct involved
and the effect of such conduct on the negotiating process. (Stockton Unified School District
(1980) PERB Decision No. No. 143.) Unilateral changes are considered "per se" violations if
certain criteria are met. Those criteria are: (1) the employer implemented a change in policy
5

concerning a matter within the scope of representation, and (2) the change was implemented
before the employer notified the exclusive representative and gave it an opportunity to request
negotiations. (Walnut Valley Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision
N 	196.)
In State of California (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Avenal State
Prison) (2011) PERB Decision N 	2196-S (Avenal), PERB recently summarized its
precedents concerning effects bargaining:
"Where a change is made to a matter that is not within the scope
of representation, or where the right to demand bargaining over
the decision to change has been waived by the employee
organization, the employer is obligated to provide notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the negotiable effects of the decision,
but not the decision itself." (County of Riverside (2010) PERB
Decision N 	2097-M (County of Riverside), citing Sylvan Union
Elementary School District (1992) PERB Decision N 	919
(Sylvan), Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB
Decision 	373b and Newman-Crows Landing Unified School
No. 223 (Newman-Crows
Landing).) Thus, an employee organization is entitled to
reasonable notice and an opportunity to bargain over the
"reasonably foreseeable" negotiable effects of a non-negotiable
decision. (Fremont Union High School District (1987) PERB
Decision No. 651; Trustees of the California State University
(2007) PERB Decision N 	1926-H; Newman-Crows Landing.)
PERB further summarized its precedents as follows:
In order to make a prima facie case of violation of the duty to
bargain in good faith over the effects of a non-negotiable
decision, the employee organization must demonstrate that it
made a valid request to bargain the negotiable effects of the
employer's decision. (State of California (Department of
Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1848-S (Department of
Corrections); County of Riverside; Sylvan.) The request must
clearly identify negotiable areas of impact and must clearly
indicate the employee organization's desire to bargain over the
effects of the decision, as opposed to the decision itself. (County
of Riverside; Sylvan; Newman-Crows Landing; Allan Hancock
Community College District (1989) PERB Decision 	768;
concerning a matter within the scope
of
representation, and (2) the change was implemented
before the employer notified the exclusive representative and gave it an opportunity to request
negotiations. (Walnut Valley Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision
n
No.	No. 160; Grant	160;
Grant
Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision	Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decisio 	No.	o. 	196.)
In State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections & Rehabilitation, Avenal State
Prison) (2011) PERB Decision No.	o. 	2196-S (Avenal), PERB recently summarized its
precedents concerning effects bargaining:
"Where a change is made to a matter that is not within the scope
of
representation, or where the right to demand bargaining over
the decision to change has been waived by the employee
organization, the employer is obligated to provide notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the negotiable effects
of
the decision,
but not the decision itself." (County
of
Riverside (2010) PERB
Decision No.	o. 2097-M (County
of
Riverside), citing Sylvan Union
Elementary School District (1992) PERB Decision No.	o. 	919
(Sylvan),
	Mt.
Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB
DecisionNo.	No. 373b and Newman-Crows Landing Unified School
District (1982) PERB Decision	District (1982) PERB Decision No. 223 (Newman-Crows
Landing).) Thus, an employee organization is entitled to
reasonable notice and an opportunity to bargain over the
"reasonably foreseeable" negotiable effects
of
a non-negotiable
decision. (Fremont Union High School District (1987) PERB
Decision No. 651; Trustees
of
the California State University
(2007) PERB Decision No.	o. 1926-H; Newman-Crows Landing.)
PERB further summarized its precedents as follows:
In order to make a prima facie case
of
violation
of
the duty to
bargain in good faith over the effects
of
a non-negotiable
decision, the employee organization must demonstrate that it
made a valid request to bargain the negotiable effects
of
the
employer's decision. (State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision
No.	No.
Beverly Hills [Unified School District (2008) PERB Decision	Beverly Hills [ Unified School District
No. 1848-S (Department
of
Corrections); County
of
Riverside; Sylvan.) The request must
clearly identify negotiable areas of impact and must clearly
indicate the employee organization's desire to bargain over the
effects of the decision, as opposed to the decision itself. (County
of
Riverside; Sylvan; Newman-Crows Landing; Allan Hancock
Community College District (1989) PERB Decision 	768;
(2008) PERB Decision
6

No. 1969 (Beverly Hills)].) In the absence of such an
identification, the employer has no duty to bargain. (Trustees of
the California State University (2009) PERB Decision No.
1876a-H (Trustees); Beverly Hills.) Furthermore, the employee
organization must show that the change had an actual effect or
impact on a negotiable matter. (Trustees, citing Regents of the
University of California (1999) PERB Decision N 1316-H.)
Under Avenal and the precedents summarized therein, an employee organization must have
properly requested effects bargaining, and there must be bargainable effects.
In the present case, CSEA's June 2009 letter to the District clearly requested bargaining
over the "effects" of the decision to install security cameras. The letter also clearly identified
two negotiable areas of impact: performance evaluations and potential discipline. PERB has
long held that these areas are within the scope of representation. (Modesto City Schools (1983)
PERB Decision
N 255 [discipline].) CSEA properly requested effects bargaining.
With regard to bargainable effects, PERB has not previously ruled on the "reasonably
foreseeable" effects of security cameras. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB),
however, has addressed the issue, in Colgate-Palmolive Co. (1997) 323 NLRB 515. The
NLRB found that such cameras were "investigatory tools" that could be used to monitor
misconduct and thus subject employees to disciplinary actions. The NLRB stated:
Accordingly, the installation and use of surveillance cameras has
the potential to affect the continued employment of employees
whose actions are being monitored.
The NLRB further stated:
The installation and use of surveillance cameras in the
workplace are not among that class of managerial decisions that
lie at the core of entrepreneurial control. The use of surveillance
cameras is not entrepreneurial in character, is not fundamental to
the basic direction of the enterprise, and impinges directly on
employment security. It is a change in the Respondent's methods
used to reduce workplace theft or detect other suspected
No. 1969 (Beverly Hills)].) In the absence of such an
identification, the employer has no duty to bargain. (Trustees of
the California State University (2009) PERB Decision No.
1876a-H (Trustees); Beverly Hills.) Furthermore, the employee
organization must show that the change had an actual effect or
impact on a negotiable matter. (Trustees, citing Regents of the
University of California (1999) PERB Decision No. o. 1316-H.)
Under Avenal and the precedents summarized therein, an employee organization must have
properly requested effects bargaining, and there must be bargainable effects.
In the present case, CSEA's June 2009 letter to the District clearly requested bargaining
over the "effects" of the decision to install security cameras. The letter also clearly identified
two negotiable areas of impact: performance evaluations and potential discipline. PERB has
long held that these areas are within the scope of representation. (Modesto City Schools (1983)
PERB Decision No. No. 347 [evaluations]; San Bernardino City Unified School District 1982) 347 [evaluations]; San Bernardino City Unified School District 1982)
PERB Decision PERB Decision No. o. 255 [discipline].) CSEA properly requested effects bargaining.
With regard to bargainable effects, PERB has not previously ruled on the "reasonably
foreseeable" effects of security cameras. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB),
however, has addressed the issue, in Colgate-Palmolive Co. (1997) 323 NLRB 515. The
NLRB found that such cameras were "investigatory tools" that could be used to monitor
misconduct and thus subject employees to disciplinary actions. The NLRB stated:
Accordingly, the installation and use of surveillance cameras has
the potential to affect the continued employment of employees
whose actions are being monitored.
The NLRB further stated:
The installation and use of surveillance cameras in the
workplace are not among that class of managerial decisions that
lie at the core of entrepreneurial control. The use of surveillance
cameras is not entrepreneurial in character, is not fundamental to
the basic direction of the enterprise, and impinges directly on
employment security. It is a change in the Respondent's methods
used to reduce workplace theft or detect other suspected
7

employee misconduct with serious implications for its
employees' job security, which in no way touches on the
discretionary "core of entrepreneurial control." [Footnote
omitted.]
The NLRB concluded that there was a duty to bargain over the installation of security cameras.
I find the NLRB's analysis persuasive and applicable to the present case. The District's
decision to install security cameras had reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects. I therefore
conclude that the District's refusal to bargain with CSEA about the effects of its decision
violated EERA section 3543.5(c). Because this conduct also interfered with the rights of
employees and denied the rights of CSEA, it also violated EERA section 3543.5(a) and (b).
REMEDY
EERA section 3541.5(c) states:
The board [PERB] shall have the power to issue a decision and
order directing an offending party to cease and desist from the
unfair practice and to take such affirmative action, including but
not limited to the reinstatement of employees with or without
back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this chapter.
In the present case, the District has been found to have violated EERA by refusing to bargain
with CSEA about the effects of a decision to install security cameras. It is therefore
appropriate to order the District to cease and desist from this refusal and to bargain with
CSEA. It is also appropriate to order the District to post a notice incorporating the terms of
PERB's order. (Placerville Union School District (1978) PERB Decision 	69.)
PROPOSED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in the
case, it is found that the Rio Hondo Community College District (District) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (Act), Government Code section 3540 et seq., by
employee misconduct with serious implications for its
employees' job security, which in no way touches on the
discretionary "core
of
entrepreneurial control." [Footnote
omitted.]
The NLRB concluded that there was a duty to bargain over the installation
of
security cameras.
I find the NLRB's analysis persuasive and applicable to the present case. The District's
decision to install security cameras had reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects. I therefore
conclude that the District's refusal to bargain with CSEA about the effects
of
its decision
violated EERA section 3543.5(c). Because this conduct also interfered with the rights
of
employees and denied the rights
of
CSEA, it also violated EERA section 3543.5(a) and (b).
REMEDY
EERA section 3541. 5(c) states:
The board [PERB] shall have the power to issue a decision and
order directing an offending party to cease and desist from the
unfair practice and to take such affirmative action, including but
not limited to the reinstatement
of
employees with or without
back pay, as will effectuate the policies
of
this chapter.
In the present case, the District has been found to have violated EERA by refusing to bargain
with CSEA about the effects
of
a decision to install security cameras.	
It
is therefore
appropriate to order the District to cease and desist from this refusal and to bargain with
CSEA.	
It
is also appropriate to order the District to post a notice incorporating the terms
of
PERB's order. (Placerville Union School District (1978) PERB Decision No.No. 69.)
PROPOSED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in the
case, it is found that the Rio Hondo Community College District (District) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (Act), Government Code section 3540 et seq., by
8

refusing to bargain with the California School Employees Association and its Chapter 477
(CSEA) about the effects of a decision to install security cameras.
Pursuant to section 3541.5(c) of the Government Code, it hereby is ORDERED that the
District, its governing board and its representatives shall:
A. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Refusing to bargain with CSEA about the effects of its decision to install security
cameras.
B. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
1 . Bargain with CSEA about the effects of its decision to install security
cameras.
2. Within ten (10) workdays of the service of a final decision in this matter,
post at all work locations where notices to employees in the District customarily are posted,
copies of the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an
authorized agent of the District, 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.
3 . Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board),
or the General Counsel's designee. Respondent shall provide reports, in writing, as directed by
the General Counsel or his/her designee. All reports regarding compliance with this Order
shall be concurrently served on CSEA.
refusing to bargain with the California School Employees Association and its Chapter 4 77
(CSEA) about the effects
of
a decision to install security cameras.
Pursuant to section 3541.S(c)
of
the Government Code, it hereby is ORDERED
that
the
District, its governing board and its representatives shall:
A. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
Refusing to bargain with CSEA about the effects
of
its decision to install security
cameras.
B. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
1.
Bargain with CSEA about the effects
of
its decision to install security
cameras.
2. Within ten (10) workdays
of
the service
of
a final decision in this matter,
post at all work locations where notices to employees in the District customarily are posted,
copies
of
the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an
authorized agent
of
the District, 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.
3. Written notification
of
the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel
of
the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board),
or the General Counsel's designee. Respondent shall provide reports, in writing, as directed by
the General Counsel or his/her designee. All reports regarding compliance with this Order
shall be concurrently served on CSEA.
9

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
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, $$ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,
$ 1 1020, subd. (a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile
transmission before the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also
places the original, together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the
U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, $$ 32090 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
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $$ 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
Thomas J. Allen
Administrative Law Judge
10
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
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
which meets the requirements
of
PERB Regulation 32135(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 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
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
10
Thomas J. Allen
Administrative Law Judge

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

** * CLARIFIED BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd.
(2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No.

2915a-H * * *
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION & ITS CHAPTER 477,
Charging Party, Case No, LA-CE-5389-E
Vv. PERB Decision No. 2313
RIO HONDO COMMUNITY COLLEGE March 21, 2013
DISTRICT,
- Respondent.

Appearances: Sonja J. Woodward, Attorney, for California School Employees Association &
its Chapter 477; Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore by Mary L. Dowell and Adrianna E. Guzman,
Attorneys, for Rio Hondo Community College District.
Before Martinez, Chair; Huguenin and Winslow, Members.
| DECISION

HUGUENIN, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by the Rio Hondo Community College District (District),
to the proposed decision (PD) (attached) of an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ
determined that the District violated section 3543.5(a), (b) and (c) of the Educational
Employment Relations Act (EERA)' by refusing to bargain with California School Employees
Association & its Chapter 477 (CSEA) over the effects of a decision to install security
cameras.

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the hearing record, the

ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the District’s exceptions, and CSEA’s response

thereto. The ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by the record and neither party excepts

' EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

further requests that the District not implement any aspect of the
camera surveillance unless and until the District has completed its
bargaining obligation. Thank you for your cooperation.
CSEA looks forward to a cooperative and constructive set of
negotiations on this difficult topic.
(PD, pp. 2-3.) The District responded on June 30, 2009, denying CSEA's request to negotiate.
(PD, pp. 3-4.)
In September 2009, still seeking to convince the District to negotiate, CSEA provided
the District a copy of a memorandum of understanding with another local school district which
addressed use of video cameras. (PD, p. 4.) Unconvinced, the District reiterated its opposition
to negotiating. (PD, pp. 4-5.)
In October 2009, CSEA brought the instant charge. PERB's Office of the General
Counsel issued a complaint in June 2010, alleging, inter alia, that on June 30, 2009 the District
violated sections 3543.5(c), (a) and (b) of EERA when it denied CSEA's "request to negotiate
the effects the security surveillance cameras will have on employees." A hearing was held in
May 2011, and the ALJ issued the PD in mid-September 2011. (PD, p. 1.)
PROPOSED DECISION
The ALJ concluded that CSEA requested effects bargaining on two negotiable areas of
impact of the District decision to install security cameras, to wit, performance evaluations and
potential discipline. (PD, p. 7.) The ALJ concluded as well that District's decision to install
security surveillance cameras did have reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects. Thus, the
ALJ concluded that the District's denial of CSEA's request to negotiate over the decision's
effects violated EERA sections 3543.5(c), (a) and (b). (PD, pp. 7-8.) The ALJ proposed the
traditional remedy for a refusal to bargain violation, consisting of cease and desist, bargaining
and posting orders. (PD, pp. 8-10.)
w
further requests that the District not implement any aspect
of
the
camera surveillance unless and until the District has completed its
bargaining obligation. Thank you for your cooperation.
CSEA looks forward to a cooperative and constructive set
of
negotiations on this difficult topic.
(PD, pp. 2-3.) The District responded on June 30, 2009, denying CSEA's request to negotiate.
(PD, pp. 3-4.)
In September 2009, still seeking to convince the District to negotiate, CSEA provided
the District a copy
of
a memorandum
of
understanding with another local school district which
addressed use
of
video cameras. (PD, p. 4.) Unconvinced, the District reiterated its opposition
to negotiating. (PD, pp. 4-5.)
In October 2009, CSEA brought the instant charge. PERB's Office
of
the General
Counsel issued a complaint in June 2010, alleging, inter alia, that on June 30, 2009 the District
violated sections 3543.S(c), (a) and (b)
of
EERA when it denied CSEA's "request to negotiate
the effects the security surveillance cameras will have on employees." A hearing was held in
May 2011, and the ALJ issued the PD in mid-September 2011. (PD,
p.
1.)
PROPOSED DECISION
The ALJ concluded that CSEA requested effects bargaining on two negotiable areas
of
impact
of
the District decision to install security cameras, to wit, performance evaluations and
potential discipline. (PD, p. 7.) The ALJ concluded as well that District's decision to install
security surveillance cameras did have reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects. Thus, the
ALJ concluded that the District's denial
of
CSEA's request to negotiate over the decision's
effects violated EERA sections 3543.S(c), (a) and (b). (PD, pp. 7-8.) The ALJ proposed the
traditional remedy for a refusal to bargain violation, consisting of cease and desist, bargaining
and posting orders. (PD, pp. 8-10.)
3

DISCUSSION
The District takes exception to each of the ALJ's principal conclusions of law. The
challenged conclusions are: (1) "CSEA's June 2009 letter to the District clearly requested
bargaining over the 'effects' of the decision to install security cameras" (PD, p. 7.); (2) "[the
letter also clearly identified two negotiable areas of impact: performance evaluations and
potential discipline" (PD, p. 7.); and (3) "[the District's decision to install security cameras
had reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects" (PD, p. 8.). The District challenges as well the
ALJ's failure to discuss the District's claim that CSEA's effects bargaining demand was tardy
and thus waived effects bargaining rights.
We first revisit briefly the legal principles governing effects bargaining and waiver, and
then address the District's contentions on appeal.
Effects Bargaining
Upon reaching a firm decision and before implementing a non-negotiable decision, an
employer must give notice and bargain upon request over the reasonably foreseeable effects of
that decision. (Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision N 373
(Mt. Diablo); Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision N 2287-H
(CSU).) The employer must provide notice sufficiently in advance of implementation to
permit the union a reasonable amount of time to consider demanding to bargain and to
negotiate over the effects. (CSU, citing Victor Valley Union High School District (1986)
PERB Decision N 565 (Victor Valley) and Compton Community College District (1989)
PERB Decision
A union's effects bargaining demand should afford the employer "general notice of the
union's interest in the effects of the . . . decision." (Newman-Crows Landing Unified School
4
DISCUSSION
The District takes exception to each of the ALJ' s principal conclusions of law. The
challenged conclusions are: ( 1) "CSEA' s June 2009 letter to the District clearly requested
bargaining over the 'effects' of the decision to install security cameras" (PD, p. 7.); (2) "[t]he
letter also clearly identified two negotiable areas of impact: performance evaluations and
potential discipline" (PD, p. 7.); and (3) "[t]he District's decision to install security cameras
had reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects" (PD, p. 8.). The District challenges as well the
ALJ's failure to discuss the District's claim that CSEA's effects bargaining demand was tardy
and thus waived effects bargaining rights.
We first revisit briefly the legal principles governing effects bargaining and waiver, and
then address the District's contentions on appeal.
Effects Bargaining
Upon reaching a firm decision and before implementing a non-negotiable decision, an
employer must give notice and bargain upon request over the reasonably foreseeable effects of
that decision. (Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No o. . 373
(Mt. Diablo); Trustees of California State University (2012) PERB Decision No. o. 2287-H
(CSU).) The employer must provide notice sufficiently in advance of implementation to
permit the union a reasonable amount of time to consider demanding to bargain and to
negotiate over the effects. (CSU, citing Victor Valley Union High School District (1986)
PERB Decision No.o. 565 (Victor Valley) and Compton Community College District (1989)
PERB Decision No. No. 720 (Compton).) 720 (Compton).)
A union's effects bargaining demand should afford the employer "general notice of the
union's interest in the effects of the ... decision." (Newman-Crows Landing Unified School
4

cameras. The District contends that to implicate an employer's bargaining duty, a union's
effects bargaining demand must "clearly identify negotiable areas of impact" and "absent such
identification the employer has no duty to bargain." Thus, concludes the District, its refusal to
negotiate was lawful because: (1) CSEA's June 2009 letter demanding to bargain "never
identified any negotiable areas of impact," that is, it did not describe "specific working
conditions it claimed would be impacted by the District's decision" (District Exceptions, p. 2.);
and (2) CSEA failed to identify "any other effects of the installation of cameras" except for
"the District's use of video tapes as evidence in evaluating or disciplining employees," which
the District contends is non-negotiable. (Ibid.) We disagree.
Prior to implementing a non-negotiable decision an employer must give notice and
upon request, negotiate over reasonably foreseeable effects upon matters within the scope of
representation. (CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. 2287-H.) The duty to bargain arises when a
firm decision is made. (Ibid.) Having made a firm decision, an employer must provide the
union with notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate before taking action that impacts
matters within the scope of representation. (Ibid.) (Regents of the University of California
(1987) PERB Decision No. 640-H.) This includes the duty to seek clarification of what is
proposed for bargaining and whether what is proposed falls within the scope of representation.
(Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision No. 375.)
Upon receiving a union's bargaining demand, the employer has three options:
(1) accede to the demand and address the union's concerns in negotiations; (2) ask the union
for its negotiation justification, viz., seek clarification of (a) the areas of impact proposed for
negotiation and (b) whether these areas of impact are within the scope of representation; or
(3) refuse the union's demand. In choosing the third option, the employer does so at its peril if
9
cameras. The District contends that to implicate an employer's bargaining duty, a union's
effects bargaining demand must "clearly identify negotiable areas of impact" and "absent such
identification the employer has no duty to bargain." Thus, concludes the District, its refusal to
negotiate was lawful because: (1) CSEA's June 2009 letter demanding to bargain "never
identified any negotiable areas of impact," that is, it did not describe "specific working
conditions it claimed would be impacted by the District's decision" (District Exceptions, p. 2.);
and (2) CSEA failed to identify "any other effects of the installation of cameras" except for
"the District's use of video tapes as evidence in evaluating or disciplining employees," which
the District contends is non-negotiable. (Ibid.) We disagree.
Prior to implementing a non-negotiable decision an employer must give notice and
upon request, negotiate over reasonably foreseeable effects upon matters within the scope of
representation. (CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. 2287-H.) The duty to bargain arises when a
firm decision is made. (Ibid.) Having made a firm decision, an employer must provide the
union with notice and a reasonable opportunity to negotiate before taking action that impacts
matters within the scope ofrepresentation. (Ibid.) (Regents of the University of California
(1987) PERB Decision No. 640-H.) This includes the duty to seek clarification of what is
proposed for bargaining and whether what is proposed falls within the scope of representation.
(Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision No. 375.)
Upon receiving a union's bargaining demand, the employer has three options:
(1) accede to the demand and address the union's concerns in negotiations; (2) ask the union
for its negotiation justification, viz., seek clarification of ( a) the areas of impact proposed for
negotiation and (b) whether these areas of impact are within the scope of representation; or
(3) refuse the union's demand. In choosing the third option, the employer does so at its peril if
9

Board dismissed the union's effects bargaining allegation, ruling that: (1) the union's written
bargaining demands requested negotiation over the "impacts and effects of requiring the tests
to be released" without clearly identifying which subjects within the scope of representation,
e.g., working hours, which were implicated by the new policy, and (2) the union's unfair
practice charge allegations did not allege an "actual impact" on working hours of employees
arising from implementation of the policy. Here, by contrast, CSEA's request
straightforwardly identified matters within the scope of representation (discipline and
evaluation procedures) implicated by the District's installation of security cameras.
The District urges that in Beverly Hills, supra, PERB Decision N 1969-E, the Board
imposed a further condition, namely, that a union's effects bargaining demand identify
"specific effects" on the matters within the scope of representation. We conclude such
specificity is unnecessary. We explain.
As the Board's decision in Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB Decision 3
Grappling with these issues first at the bargaining table enables the parties to reach consensus,
or at least clarity, regarding their respective positions on the reasonably foreseeable effects of
the employer's decision and enables as well discussions leading to agreement or impasse on
*In CSU, supra, PERB Decision N 2287-H, we confirmed that when alleging an
employer refusal to negotiate in response to an effects bargaining demand, a union need not
allege or prove an actual change arising from implementation of the non-negotiable decision,
but merely that the impact upon which it sought to bargain was then reasonably foreseeable.
While some non-negotiable decisions, and their reasonably foreseeable effects, may
be well understood based on the parties' recent and frequent experience, viz., layoffs due to
state budget cuts, others are not. These may include program changes and institutional
reorganizations, with which neither the employer nor its employees have much experience.
12
Board dismissed the union's effects bargaining allegation, ruling that: (1) the union's written
bargaining demands requested negotiation over the "impacts and effects of requiring the tests
to be released" without clearly identifying which subjects within the scope of representation,
e.g., working hours, which were implicated by the new policy, and (2) the union's unfair
practice charge allegations did not allege an "actual impact"4 on working hours of employees
arising from implementation of the policy. Here, by contrast, CSEA's request
straightforwardly identified matters within the scope of representation (discipline and
evaluation procedures) implicated by the District's installation of security cameras.
The District urges that in Beverly Hills, supra, PERB Decision No.o. 1969-E, the Board
imposed a further condition, namely, that a union's effects bargaining demand identify
"specific effects" on the matters within the scope of representation. We conclude such
specificity is unnecessary. We explain.
As the Board's decision in Healdsburg/San Mateo, supra, PERB DecisionNo. No. 375 75
makes clear, in the first instance the proper place to clarify bargaining demands and proposals makes clear, in the first instance the proper place to clarify bargaining demands and proposals
is at the bargaining table itself. This is especially true in effects bargaining, where parties must is at the bargaining table itself. This is especially true in effects bargaining, where parties must
anticipate the future impact of a non-negotiable decision announced but not yet implemented. anticipate the future impact of a non-negotiable decision announced but not yet implemented. 5
Grappling with these issues first at the bargaining table enables the parties to reach consensus,
or at least clarity, regarding their respective positions on the reasonably foreseeable effects of
the employer's decision and enables as well discussions leading to agreement or impasse on
4 In CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. o. 2287-H, we confirmed that when alleging an
employer refusal to negotiate in response to an effects bargaining demand, a union need not
allege or prove an actual change arising from implementation of the non-negotiable decision,
but merely that the impact upon which it sought to bargain was then reasonably foreseeable.
5 While some non-negotiable decisions, and their reasonably foreseeable effects, may
be well understood based on the parties' recent and frequent experience, viz., layoffs due to
state budget cuts, others are not. These may include program changes and institutional
reorganizations, with which neither the employer nor its employees have much experience.
12

We conclude that requiring negotiation over the effects on performance evaluations and
potential discipline flowing from the District's decision to install security cameras would not
significantly abridge the exercise of managerial prerogatives essential to the achievement of
the employer's mission. PERB and California courts have found that fundamental managerial
or policy decisions include layoffs, ' contracting out, background investigations required by
statute, policies for police officer discharge of firearms, "and police review procedures."In
contrast, making and using video recordings of employees for purposes of disciplining them
and/or evaluating their work performance affects wages, hours and other terms and conditions
of employment within the scope of representation, not fundamental managerial or policy
matters concerning the nature and quality of public services. As such, these effects of video
We find unconvincing the District's assertion that negotiating with CSEA over
limitations on its claimed unfettered discretion to utilize video records in discipline and
evaluation of employees would abridge significantly its freedom to exercise those managerial
prerogatives essential to the achievement of the District's mission." The obligation to
ewman-Crows Landing, supra, PERB Decision 223.
Building Material & Construction Teamsters' Union v. Farrell (1986) 41 C d 651.
Sutter County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2007) PERB Decision
San Jose Peace Officers' Assn. v. City of San Jose (1978) 78 C App.3d 935.
" Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley (1977) 76 A
2 Nothing in this decision is intended to restrict a public entity's decision to institute
surveillance of non-employees, such as students or other members of the public for security
purposes, as EERA's jurisdiction reaches only to matters concerning employment relations.
To the extent surveillance by a public entity implicates statutory or constitutional interests of
non-employees, or of employees not covered by EERA, those issues must be determined in a
different forum.
16
We conclude that requiring negotiation over the effects on performance evaluations and
potential discipline flowing from the District's decision to install security cameras would not
significantly abridge the exercise
of
managerial prerogatives essential
to
the achievement
of
the employer's mission. PERB and California courts have found that fundamental managerial
or policy decisions include layoffs,7 contracting out,8 background investigations required by
statute,9 policies for police officer discharge
of
firearms, 10
and police review procedures.
11
In
contrast, making and using video recordings
of
employees for purposes
of
disciplining them
and/or evaluating their work performance affects wages, hours and other terms and conditions
of
employment within the scope
of
representation, not fundamental managerial or policy
matters concerning the nature and quality
of
public services. As such, these effects
of
video
surveillance of employees are negotiable. surveillance
of
employees are negotiable.
We find unconvincing the District's assertion that negotiating with CSEA over
limitations on its claimed unfettered discretion to utilize video records in discipline and
evaluation
of
employees would abridge significantly its freedom to exercise those managerial
prerogatives essential to the achievement
of
the District's mission.
12
The obligation to
"NNewman-Crows Landing, supra, PERB Decision 223.
8 Building Material & Construction Teamsters' Union
v.
Farrell (1986)
41
Cal al.3.3d 651.
9 Sutter County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority (2007) PERB Decision
No. No. 1900-M. 1900-M.
10 San Jose Peace Officers' Assn.
v.
City
of
San Jose (1978) 78 Cal. al. App.3d 935.
11
Berkeley Police Assn.
v.
City
of
Berkeley (1977) 76 Cal. Cal.App.3d pp.3d 931. 931.
12 Nothing in this decision is intended to restrict a public entity's decision to institute
surveillance of non-employees, such as students or other members of the public for security
purposes, as EERA's jurisdiction reaches only to matters concerning employment relations.
To the extent surveillance by a public entity implicates statutory or constitutional interests of
non-employees, or of employees not covered by EERA, those issues must be determined in a
different forum.
16

not a term or condition of employment, and rejected the union's contention on appeal that the
change in reporting location was also related to another enumerated subject, viz., transfer or
reassignment. The Board held, ultimately, that the allegation of change in reporting location
did not concern a matter within the scope of representation, and, accordingly, there was no
duty to negotiate over the decision itself and thus no unlawful unilateral change when the
decision was implemented.
On appeal the union supplemented is allegations, claiming that the change in reporting
location also forced employees to begin paying for parking, which prior to the location change
had been provided by the employer without charge, and that the parking costs implicated
wages. The Board refused to consider this new allegation, as the union failed to explain why it
had not raised the issue earlier. However, the Board nonetheless discussed whether the union's
new allegation about parking costs articulated a negotiable effect of the employer's change in
reporting location. Because the union had not alleged that any employee "actually" paid for
parking at the new reporting location, the Board deemed the union's parking claim inadequate
to establish a negotiable effect. The Board relied on Beverly Hills, supra, PERB Decision
1639 in
holding that an alleged failure to bargain over negotiable effects must state "facts establishing
an actual impact on employees' terms and conditions of employment." (San Francisco, supra,
PERB Decision N 2048 [emphasis added].)
As we held in CSU, supra, PERB Decision N 2287-H, a prima facie case of refusal to
negotiate over the effects of a non-negotiable decision does not require a showing of "actual
impact" upon a matter within the scope of representation, but merely a reasonably foreseeable
prospective impact. We disavow here that portion of San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision
19
not a term or condition of employment, and rejected the union's contention on appeal that the
change in reporting location was also related to another enumerated subject, viz., transfer or
reassignment. The Board held, ultimately, that the allegation of change in reporting location
did not concern a matter within the scope of representation, and, accordingly, there was no
duty to negotiate over the decision itself and thus no unlawful unilateral change when the
decision was implemented.
On appeal the union supplemented is allegations, claiming that the change in reporting
location also forced employees to begin paying for parking, which prior to the location change
had been provided by the employer without charge, and that the parking costs implicated
wages. The Board refused to consider this new allegation, as the union failed to explain why it
had not raised the issue earlier. However, the Board nonetheless discussed whether the union's
new allegation about parking costs articulated a negotiable effect of the employer's change in
reporting location. Because the union had not alleged that any employee "actually" paid for
parking at the new reporting location, the Board deemed the union's parking claim inadequate
to establish a negotiable effect. The Board relied on Beverly Hills, supra, PERB Decision
No. No. 1969-E and Salinas Union High School District (2004) PERB Decision 1969-E and Salinas Union High School District (2004) PERB Decision No. No. 1639 in
holding that an alleged failure to bargain over negotiable effects must state "facts establishing
an actual impact on employees' terms and conditions of employment." (San Francisco, supra,
PERB Decision No. o. 2048 [emphasis added].)
As we held in CSU, supra, PERB Decision
No. No.
2287-H, a prima facie case of refusal to
negotiate over the effects of a non-negotiable decision does not require a showing of "actual
impact" upon a matter within the scope of representation, but merely a reasonably foreseeable
prospective impact. We disavow here that portion of San Francisco, supra, PERB Decision
No. o.
19
2048 which purports to require an allegation of "actual impact." 2048 which purports to require an allegation of "actual impact."

The Board decisions cited by the ALJ hold, respectively, that discipline criteria and
procedures and evaluation procedures are matters within the scope of representation.
(San Bernardino, supra, PERB Decision 255
N 347 [evaluation procedures
negotiable].) It is for that principle that they were cited by the ALJ. We find no basis to
disturb the ALJ's reliance on these cases.
We likewise conclude that the ALJ relied properly on NLRB authority finding
negotiable an employer's use of surveillance cameras in the work place. (Colgate-Palmolive
Co. (1997) 323 NLRB 515.) The District distinguishes this NLRB decision on the ground that
the surveillance cameras in question were hidden and that the premises in question were
private. We conclude such distinctions (overt vs. covert cameras, and public vs. private
premises) are of no moment when assessing whether workplace surveillance of employees
presents issues appropriate for meeting and negotiating the effects of an employer's decision to
install security cameras. A public or private employer may use an overt camera covertly, by
operating the camera on an undisclosed schedule, monitoring only certain employees, or
recording only selected persons or events. Likewise, although both employer and employee
15 We note that other PERB decisions also support the result reached by the ALJ that
installation of surveillance cameras has negotiable effects on discipline and evaluations.
(Jefferson School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 133 [nature of material to be used for
evaluation negotiable]; Walnut Valley Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision. N 289
[criteria and procedures for evaluation negotiable]; Trustees of the California State University
(2001) PERB Decision N 1451-H [mandatory employee name tags negotiable]; Trustees
CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. 1507-H [monitoring employee computer use negotiable];
Fairfield-Suisun, supra, PERB Decision N 2262 [zero tolerance of failure or refusal to
submit to drug test negotiable].)
1 When construing California public sector labor relations statutes, California courts
and PERB rely on NLRB and judicial decisions construing similar language in the National
Labor Relations Act. (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983)
33 Cal.3d 850; Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
21
The Board decisions cited by the ALJ hold, respectively, that discipline criteria and
procedures and evaluation procedures are matters within the scope of representation.
(San Bernardino, supra, PERB Decision 255 No. No. [criteria and procedures for discipline [criteria and procedures for discipline
negotiable]; Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Decision negotiable]; Modesto City Schools (1983) PERB Decision No. o. 347 [evaluation procedures
negotiable].) It is for that principle that they were cited by the ALJ. We find no basis to
disturb the ALJ' s reliance on these cases. 15
We likewise conclude that the ALJ relied properly on NLRB authority16 finding
negotiable an employer's use of surveillance cameras in the work place. (Colgate-Palmolive
Co. (1997) 323 NLRB 515.) The District distinguishes this NLRB decision on the ground that
the surveillance cameras in question were hidden and that the premises in question were
private. We conclude such distinctions (overt vs. covert cameras, and public vs. private
premises) are of no moment when assessing whether workplace surveillance of employees
presents issues appropriate for meeting and negotiating the effects of an employer's decision to
install security cameras. A public or private employer may use an overt camera covertly, by
operating the camera on an undisclosed schedule, monitoring only certain employees, or
recording only selected persons or events. Likewise, although both employer and employee
15 We note that other PERB decisions also support the result reached by the ALJ that
installation of surveillance cameras has negotiable effects on discipline and evaluations.
(Jefferson School District (1980) PERB Decision No. 133 [nature of material to be used for
evaluation negotiable]; Walnut Valley Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision. No. o. 289
[criteria and procedures for evaluation negotiable]; Trustees of the California State University
(2001) PERB Decision No. o. 1451-H [mandatory employee name tags negotiable]; Trustees
CSU, supra, PERB Decision No. 1507-H [monitoring employee computer use negotiable];
Fairfield-Suisun, supra, PERB Decision No. o. 2262 [zero tolerance of failure or refusal to
submit to drug test negotiable].)
16 When construing California public sector labor relations statutes, California courts
and PERB rely on NLRB and judicial decisions construing similar language in the National
Labor Relations Act. (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983)
33 Cal.3d 850; Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608.)
21

expectations of privacy may differ depending on the location within the workplace (e.g.,
bathrooms versus reception areas), workplace surveillance in both the public and private
sector, using either hidden or overt cameras, is driven by a perceived need to enforce the
employer's rules for employee conduct. Workplace surveillance cameras on both public and
private property implicate the same concerns, viz., the nature and extent of video records
documenting a particular employee's workplace conduct, the reliability of such records, and
access to or use of such records when making, substantiating or rebutting a disciplinary or
evaluatingecision affecting an individual employee.
CONCLUSION
We hold that by refusing to bargain over the effects of a decision to install security
surveillance cameras, the District violated EERA section 3543.5(c). We hold that this conduct
likewise denied to employees their right to participate in an employee organization for the
purpose of representation, thereby violating EERA section 3543.5(a), and that this conduct
likewise denied to CSEA, an employee organization, rights to represent employees in their
employment relations with the District, thereby violating EERA section 3543.5(b).
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in the
case, it is found that the Rio Hondo Community College District (District) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code section 3540 et seq., by
refusing to bargain with the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 477
(CSEA) about the effects of a decision to install security cameras.
Pursuant to section 3541.5(c) of the Government Code, it hereby is ORDERED that the
District, its governing board and its representatives shall:
22
expectations
of
privacy may differ depending on the location within the workplace (e.g.,
bathrooms versus reception areas), workplace surveillance in both the public and private
sector, using either hidden or overt cameras, is driven by a perceived need to enforce the
employer's rules for employee conduct. Workplace surveillance cameras on both public and
private property implicate the same concerns, viz., the nature and extent
of
video records
documenting a particular employee's workplace conduct, the reliability
of
such records, and
access to or use
of
such records when making, substantiating or rebutting a disciplinary
or
evaluative decision affecting an individual employee.
CONCLUSION
22
We hold that by refusing to bargain over the effects
of
a decision to install security
surveillance cameras, the District violated EERA section 3543.S(c). We hold that this conduct
likewise denied to employees their right to participate in an employee organization for the
purpose
of
representation, thereby violating EERA section 3543.S(a), and that this conduct
likewise denied to CSEA, an employee organization, rights to represent employees in their
employment relations with the District, thereby violating EERA section 3543.S(b
).
ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings
of
fact and conclusions
of
law, and the entire record in the
case, it is found that the Rio Hondo Community College District (District) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code section 3540 et seq., by
refusing to bargain with the California School Employees Association & its Chapter 4 77
(CSEA) about the effects of a decision to install security cameras.
Pursuant to section 3541.S(c) of the Government Code, it hereby is ORDERED that the
District, its governing board and its representatives shall:

FINDINGS OF FACT
The District is a public school employer under EERA, and CSEA is an exclusive
representative under EERA.
On April 16, 2009, at a labor relations meeting, the District informed CSEA of its intent
to install security cameras in its new Learning Resource Center (LRC). The minutes of the
meeting state in part:
[District Vice President of Finance] Teresa [Dreyfuss] showed
[CSEA Chapter President] Lisa [Sandoval] where cameras will
be installed, only in hallways away from personnel work
station [sic].
15t floor-2 outside, 4 inside in hallways.
loor-1 reading room, 2 stairs
Rationale for cameras: theft, vandalism of the LRC and to protect
District property and assets.
The District later expanded its plans to include the installation of security cameras in its
parking lots.
In the LRC, the cameras would show CSEA unit members (as well as members of the
public, the student body and the faculty) coming and going during the workday. At least one
camera would show unit members entering and leaving an employee break room. When unit
members were cleaning public areas of the LRC, the cameras would show them at work. In the
parking lots, the cameras would show unit members at work maintaining outdoor areas.
In June 2009, CSEA sent the District a letter stating:
This is a formal request by CSEA Chapter #477 at your district to
negotiate over the decision and effects of the District's stated
intent to install surveillance cameras in select areas on the
College campus.
Specifically, CSEA has learned that it is the intention of the
District to install surveillance monitoring cameras in the new
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
The District is a public school employer under EERA, and CSEA is an exclusive
representative under EERA.
On April 16, 2009, at a labor relations meeting, the District informed CSEA
of
its intent
to install security cameras in its new Learning Resource Center (LRC). The minutes
of
the
meeting state in part:
[District Vice President
of
Finance] Teresa [Dreyfuss] showed
[CSEA Chapter President] Lisa [Sandoval] where cameras will
be installed, only in hallways away from personnel work
station [sic].
1st floor-2 outside, 4 inside in hallways.
nd
2"d f 2 floor-I reading room, 2 stairs
Rationale for cameras: theft, vandalism
of
the LRC and to protect
District property and assets.
The District later expanded its plans to include the installation
of
security cameras in its
parking lots.
In the LRC, the cameras would show CSEA unit members (as well as members
of
the
public, the student body and the faculty) coming and going during the workday. At least one
camera would show unit members entering and leaving an employee break room. When unit
members were cleaning public areas
of
the LRC, the cameras would show them
at
work. In the
parking lots, the cameras would show unit members at work maintaining outdoor areas.
In June 2009, CSEA sent the District a letter stating:
This is a formal request by CSEA Chapter #477 at your district to
negotiate over the decision and effects
of
the District's stated
intent to install surveillance cameras in select areas on the
College campus.
Specifically, CSEA has learned that it is the intention of the
District to install surveillance monitoring cameras in the new
2

1. Goal is to have a discussion so we can resolve
items and share comments.
Cameras used as pre-measurable matter for
preventable measures. Some employees in the
bargaining unit have a sense of mistrust for some
of the Administrators. CSEA Membership is
worried about Administration who are already
targeting employees and always checking their
whereabouts.
Both the District and the union agree on a common interest- we
need to work on identifying ways we can share information.
CSEA wants to know who is bonded and trained to look at this?
CSEA asked who is looking at this information and reporting it to
whom? Where will the information be retained and what will it
be used for?
For clarification and communication purposes, [District Vice
President of Academic Services] Paul [Parnell] explained the
current practices of the Security Department (security department
[sic] staff who have security concerns reports them to appropriate
supervisor(s).
In September 2009, CSEA provided the District an example of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on the subject. That MOU with a local school district provided:
1 . Effective upon the date of approval by the District and
ratification by CSEA, the parties agree to a pilot program
ending August 1, 2009, regarding the impact of the
District's use of video cameras on CSEA bargaining unit
employees.
2. As of July 2008, there are two cameras available which
are used on an as needed basis when there is an incident of
vandalism or criminal activity. Beginning in 2009, it is
anticipated that cameras will be installed on the exteriors
and hallways at all District campuses for the purpose of
deterring and recording vandalism, as well as other
criminal activity.
3. Tapes will only be reviewed when there is an incident of
vandalism or criminal activity. The sole purpose of
viewing these tapes is to determine the source of incidents
of vandalism or criminal activity. More specifically, they
1.
Goal is to have a discussion
so
we can resolve
items and share comments.
2.
Cameras used as pre-measurable matter for
preventable measures. Some employees in the
bargaining unit have a sense
of
mistrust for some
of
the Administrators. CSEA Membership is
worried about Administration who are already
targeting employees and always checking their
whereabouts.
Both the District and the union agree on a common interest- we
need to work on identifying ways we can share information.
CSEA wants to know who is bonded and trained to look at this?
CSEA asked who is looking at this information and reporting it to
whom? Where will the information be retained and what will it
be used for?
For clarification and communication purposes, [District Vice
President
of
Academic Services] Paul [Parnell] explained the
current practices
of
the Security Department (security department
[sic] staff who have security concerns reports them to appropriate
supervisor(s).
In September 2009, CSEA provided the District an example
of
a Memorandum
of
Understanding (MOU) on the subject. That MOU with a local school district provided:
1.
Effective upon the date
of
approval by the District and
ratification by CSEA, the parties agree to a pilot program
ending August
1,
2009, regarding the impact
of
the
District's use
of
video cameras on CSEA bargaining unit
employees.
2. As of July 2008, there are two cameras available which
are used on an as needed basis when there is an incident of
vandalism or criminal activity. Beginning in 2009, it is
anticipated that cameras will be installed on the exteriors
and hallways at all District campuses for the purpose of
deterring and recording vandalism, as well as other
criminal activity.
3. Tapes will only be reviewed when there is an incident of
vandalism or criminal activity. The sole purpose of
viewing these tapes is to determine the source of incidents
of vandalism or criminal activity. More specifically, they
4

concerning a matter within the scope of representation, and (2) the change was implemented
before the employer notified the exclusive representative and gave it an opportunity to request
negotiations. (Walnut Valley Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision
N 196.)
In State of California (Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, Avenal State
Prison) (2011) PERB Decision N 2196-S (Avenal), PERB recently summarized its
precedents concerning effects bargaining:
"Where a change is made to a matter that is not within the scope
of representation, or where the right to demand bargaining over
the decision to change has been waived by the employee
organization, the employer is obligated to provide notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the negotiable effects of the decision,
but not the decision itself." (County of Riverside (2010) PERB
Decision N 2097-M (County of Riverside), citing Sylvan Union
Elementary School District (1992) PERB Decision N 919
(Sylvan), Mt. Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB
Decision 373b and Newman-Crows Landing Unified School
No. 223 (Newman-Crows
Landing).) Thus, an employee organization is entitled to
reasonable notice and an opportunity to bargain over the
"reasonably foreseeable" negotiable effects of a non-negotiable
decision. (Fremont Union High School District (1987) PERB
Decision No. 651; Trustees of the California State University
(2007) PERB Decision N 1926-H; Newman-Crows Landing.)
PERB further summarized its precedents as follows:
In order to make a prima facie case of violation of the duty to
bargain in good faith over the effects of a non-negotiable
decision, the employee organization must demonstrate that it
made a valid request to bargain the negotiable effects of the
employer's decision. (State of California (Department of
Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision No. 1848-S (Department of
Corrections); County of Riverside; Sylvan.) The request must
clearly identify negotiable areas of impact and must clearly
indicate the employee organization's desire to bargain over the
effects of the decision, as opposed to the decision itself. (County
of Riverside; Sylvan; Newman-Crows Landing; Allan Hancock
Community College District (1989) PERB Decision 768;
concerning a matter within the scope
of
representation, and (2) the change was implemented
before the employer notified the exclusive representative and gave it an opportunity to request
negotiations. (Walnut Valley Unified School District (1981) PERB Decision
n
No. No. 160; Grant 160;
Grant
Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision Joint Union High School District (1982) PERB Decisio No. o. 196.)
In State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections & Rehabilitation, Avenal State
Prison) (2011) PERB Decision No. o. 2196-S (Avenal), PERB recently summarized its
precedents concerning effects bargaining:
"Where a change is made to a matter that is not within the scope
of
representation, or where the right to demand bargaining over
the decision to change has been waived by the employee
organization, the employer is obligated to provide notice and an
opportunity to bargain over the negotiable effects
of
the decision,
but not the decision itself." (County
of
Riverside (2010) PERB
Decision No. o. 2097-M (County
of
Riverside), citing Sylvan Union
Elementary School District (1992) PERB Decision No. o. 919
(Sylvan),
Mt.
Diablo Unified School District (1984) PERB
DecisionNo. No. 373b and Newman-Crows Landing Unified School
District (1982) PERB Decision District (1982) PERB Decision No. 223 (Newman-Crows
Landing).) Thus, an employee organization is entitled to
reasonable notice and an opportunity to bargain over the
"reasonably foreseeable" negotiable effects
of
a non-negotiable
decision. (Fremont Union High School District (1987) PERB
Decision No. 651; Trustees
of
the California State University
(2007) PERB Decision No. o. 1926-H; Newman-Crows Landing.)
PERB further summarized its precedents as follows:
In order to make a prima facie case
of
violation
of
the duty to
bargain in good faith over the effects
of
a non-negotiable
decision, the employee organization must demonstrate that it
made a valid request to bargain the negotiable effects
of
the
employer's decision. (State
of
California (Department
of
Corrections) (2006) PERB Decision
No. No.
Beverly Hills [Unified School District (2008) PERB Decision Beverly Hills [ Unified School District
No. 1848-S (Department
of
Corrections); County
of
Riverside; Sylvan.) The request must
clearly identify negotiable areas of impact and must clearly
indicate the employee organization's desire to bargain over the
effects of the decision, as opposed to the decision itself. (County
of
Riverside; Sylvan; Newman-Crows Landing; Allan Hancock
Community College District (1989) PERB Decision 768;
(2008) PERB Decision
6

employee misconduct with serious implications for its
employees' job security, which in no way touches on the
discretionary "core of entrepreneurial control." [Footnote
omitted.]
The NLRB concluded that there was a duty to bargain over the installation of security cameras.
I find the NLRB's analysis persuasive and applicable to the present case. The District's
decision to install security cameras had reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects. I therefore
conclude that the District's refusal to bargain with CSEA about the effects of its decision
violated EERA section 3543.5(c). Because this conduct also interfered with the rights of
employees and denied the rights of CSEA, it also violated EERA section 3543.5(a) and (b).
REMEDY
EERA section 3541.5(c) states:
The board [PERB] shall have the power to issue a decision and
order directing an offending party to cease and desist from the
unfair practice and to take such affirmative action, including but
not limited to the reinstatement of employees with or without
back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this chapter.
In the present case, the District has been found to have violated EERA by refusing to bargain
with CSEA about the effects of a decision to install security cameras. It is therefore
appropriate to order the District to cease and desist from this refusal and to bargain with
CSEA. It is also appropriate to order the District to post a notice incorporating the terms of
PERB's order. (Placerville Union School District (1978) PERB Decision 69.)
PROPOSED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in the
case, it is found that the Rio Hondo Community College District (District) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (Act), Government Code section 3540 et seq., by
employee misconduct with serious implications for its
employees' job security, which in no way touches on the
discretionary "core
of
entrepreneurial control." [Footnote
omitted.]
The NLRB concluded that there was a duty to bargain over the installation
of
security cameras.
I find the NLRB's analysis persuasive and applicable to the present case. The District's
decision to install security cameras had reasonably foreseeable negotiable effects. I therefore
conclude that the District's refusal to bargain with CSEA about the effects
of
its decision
violated EERA section 3543.5(c). Because this conduct also interfered with the rights
of
employees and denied the rights
of
CSEA, it also violated EERA section 3543.5(a) and (b).
REMEDY
EERA section 3541. 5(c) states:
The board [PERB] shall have the power to issue a decision and
order directing an offending party to cease and desist from the
unfair practice and to take such affirmative action, including but
not limited to the reinstatement
of
employees with or without
back pay, as will effectuate the policies
of
this chapter.
In the present case, the District has been found to have violated EERA by refusing to bargain
with CSEA about the effects
of
a decision to install security cameras.
It
is therefore
appropriate to order the District to cease and desist from this refusal and to bargain with
CSEA.
It
is also appropriate to order the District to post a notice incorporating the terms
of
PERB's order. (Placerville Union School District (1978) PERB Decision No.No. 69.)
PROPOSED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in the
case, it is found that the Rio Hondo Community College District (District) violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (Act), Government Code section 3540 et seq., by
8

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
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, $$ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,
$ 1 1020, subd. (a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile
transmission before the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also
places the original, together with the required number of copies and proof of service, in the
U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, $$ 32090 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
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $$ 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
Thomas J. Allen
Administrative Law Judge
10
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
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
which meets the requirements
of
PERB Regulation 32135(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 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
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
10
Thomas J. Allen
Administrative Law Judge

Rio Hondo Community College District * * * CLARIFIED BY Trustees of the California State University v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 90 and Trustees of the California State University (2026) PERB Decision No. 2915a-H * * * (PERB 2313E)

Testo completo

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude