meet-and-confer requirement in California

2022(Claremont, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 638 .) Second, if there is a significant and adverse effect, “we ask whether the significant and adverse effect arises from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision.” (Ibid.) If it does not, “the meet-and-confer requirement applies.” (Ibid.) “Third, if both factors are present—if an action taken to implement a fundamental managerial or policy decision has a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the employees—we apply a balancing test.” (Ibid.) Under that balancing test, an action “ ‘is within th

2014The phrase “merits, necessity or organization of any service or activity” has no counterpart in the NLRA. ( Farrell, supra, 41 Cal.3d 651, 658 .) “This exclusionary language, which was added in 1968, was intended to ‘forestall any expansion of the language of “wages, hours and working conditions” to include more general managerial policy decisions.’ [Citation]; Stats. 1968, ch. 1390, § 4, p. 2727.) ‘Federal and California decisions both recognize the right of employers to make unconstrained decisions when fundamental management or policy choices are involved.’ ([Farrell], supra, 41 Cal.3d at p

2014The phrase “merits, necessity or organization of any service or activity” has no counterpart in the NLRA. ( Farrell, supra, 41 Cal.3d 651, 658 .) “This exclusionary language, which was added in 1968, was intended to ‘forestall any expansion of the language of “wages, hours and working conditions” to include more general managerial policy decisions.’ [Citation]; Stats. 1968, ch. 1390, § 4, p. 2727.) ‘Federal and California decisions both recognize the right of employers to make unconstrained decisions when fundamental management or policy choices are involved.’ ([Farrell], supra, 41 Cal.3d at p

2014The phrase “merits, necessity or organization of any service or activity” has no counterpart in the NLRA. ( Farrell, supra, 41 Cal.3d 651, 658 .) “This exclusionary language, which was added in 1968, was intended to ‘forestall any expansion of the language of “wages, hours and working conditions” to include more general managerial policy decisions.’ [Citation]; Stats. 1968, ch. 1390, § 4, p. 2727.) ‘Federal and California decisions both recognize the right of employers to make unconstrained decisions when fundamental management or policy choices are involved.’ ([Farrell], supra, 41 Cal.3d at p

2021He continued using his powers of office to promote the Initiative after the proponents emerged.” (Id. at pp. 904, 916.) In considering whether the meet and confer requirement applied, the Supreme Court noted that the statute’s “broad formulation encompasses more than formal actions taken by the governing body itself.” (Boling, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 904 .)8 The statute “expressly imposes the duty to meet and confer on ‘[t]he governing body of a public agency, or such boards, commissions, administrative officers or other representatives as may be properly designated by law or by such governing

2021He continued using his powers of office to promote the Initiative after the proponents emerged.” (Id. at pp. 904, 916.) In considering whether the meet and confer requirement applied, the Supreme Court noted that the statute’s “broad formulation encompasses more than formal actions taken by the governing body itself.” (Boling, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 904 .)8 The statute “expressly imposes the duty to meet and confer on ‘[t]he governing body of a public agency, or such boards, commissions, administrative officers or other representatives as may be properly designated by law or by such governing

2009First, the court considered whether the management action has a "significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees." ( Building Material, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 660 .) If not, there is no duty to meet and confer. ( Id. at pp. 659-660.) Second, the court considered whether the significant and adverse effect arises from implementation of a "fundamental managerial or policy decision." ( Id. at p. 660.) If not, a meet and confer requirement applies. ( Ibid. ) Third, if both facts are present, the court applies a balancing test and applies a

2009First, the court considered whether the management action has a "significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the bargaining-unit employees." ( Building Material, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 660 .) If not, there is no duty to meet and confer. ( Id. at pp. 659-660.) Second, the court considered whether the significant and adverse effect arises from implementation of a "fundamental managerial or policy decision." ( Id. at p. 660.) If not, a meet and confer requirement applies. ( Ibid. ) Third, if both facts are present, the court applies a balancing test and applies a

2022(Claremont, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 638 .) Second, if there is a significant and adverse effect, “we ask whether the significant and adverse effect arises from the implementation of a fundamental managerial or policy decision.” (Ibid.) If it does not, “the meet-and-confer requirement applies.” (Ibid.) “Third, if both factors are present—if an action taken to implement a fundamental managerial or policy decision has a significant and adverse effect on the wages, hours, or working conditions of the employees—we apply a balancing test.” (Ibid.) Under that balancing test, an action “ ‘is within th

2014To determine whether an employer’s action implementing a fundamental decision is subject to the meet-and-confer requirement (§ 3505), we employ the test found in our decision in Building Material . . . .” Claremont Police Officers Assn., supra, 39 Cal.4th at page 636, summarized Building Material, stating, in that case, “the city was required to meet and confer [citation] with the Union because the city’s transfer of duties to a nonbargaining unit had a significant and adverse effect on the bargaining unit’s wages, hours, and working conditions,” and its action was not “exempted as a fundament

2014(Placentia Fire Fighters v. City of Placentia (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 9, 27-28 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 126 ].) Building Material, supra, 41 Cal.3d 651 , and its progeny guide our review and support the trial court’s conclusion the Department’s reorganization plan was subject to the MMBA’s meet and confer requirement.

2014(Placentia Fire Fighters v. City of Placentia (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 9, 27-28 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 126 ].) Building Material, supra, 41 Cal.3d 651 , and its progeny guide our review and support the trial court’s conclusion the Department’s reorganization plan was subject to the MMBA’s meet and confer requirement.

2010(Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608, 614, fn. 4 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 507 , 526 P.2d 971 ].) “The meet-and-confer requirement is an essential component of the state’s legislative scheme for regulating . . . employment practices.” {Seal Beach, at p. 599.) “The duty to meet and confer in good faith is limited to matters within the ‘scope of representation’ . . .” however.

2010(Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608, 614, fn. 4 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 507 , 526 P.2d 971 ].) “The meet-and-confer requirement is an essential component of the state’s legislative scheme for regulating . . . employment practices.” {Seal Beach, at p. 599.) “The duty to meet and confer in good faith is limited to matters within the ‘scope of representation’ . . .” however.

2004(Accord, Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court (1978) 23 Cal.3d 55, 63-64 , 151 Cal.Rptr. 547 , 588 P.2d 249 ; State Assn. of Real Property Agents v. State Personnel Bd. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 206, 211-213 , 147 Cal.Rptr. 786 .) A policy or regulation may both significantly affect wages, hours, or other working conditions and constitute "a fundamental managerial or policy decision." ( Building Material, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 660 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 688 , 715 P.2d 648 .) In those circumstances, the meet and confer requirement is inapplicable unless "the employer's need for unencumb

2004(Accord, Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court (1978) 23 Cal.3d 55, 63-64 , 151 Cal.Rptr. 547 , 588 P.2d 249 ; State Assn. of Real Property Agents v. State Personnel Bd. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 206, 211-213 , 147 Cal.Rptr. 786 .) A policy or regulation may both significantly affect wages, hours, or other working conditions and constitute "a fundamental managerial or policy decision." ( Building Material, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 660 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 688 , 715 P.2d 648 .) In those circumstances, the meet and confer requirement is inapplicable unless "the employer's need for unencumb

2021Instead, the impact was on “a local agency’s governing functions” and was “a relatively ‘minimal’ burden.” (Boling, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 915 ; see ibid. [although the meet-and-confer provision “ ‘encourages binding agreements resulting from the parties’ bargaining, the governing body of the agency . . . retains the ultimate power to refuse an agreement and to make its own decision’ ”].) In contrast, we are obliged to “narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit the exercise of” the initiative power (California Cannabis, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 936 ), and the two-thirds requirement

2021Instead, the impact was on “a local agency’s governing functions” and was “a relatively ‘minimal’ burden.” (Boling, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 915 ; see ibid. [although the meet-and-confer provision “ ‘encourages binding agreements resulting from the parties’ bargaining, the governing body of the agency . . . retains the ultimate power to refuse an agreement and to make its own decision’ ”].) In contrast, we are obliged to “narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit the exercise of” the initiative power (California Cannabis, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 936 ), and the two-thirds requirement

1980Citing Social Services Union v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 498, 504 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 126 ], the City contends that the rule in question is an “indirect and insubstantial fringe benefit”—since it did not “materially or significantly affect the terms or conditions of employment”—and is therefore not subject to the meet and confer requirement.

1980Citing Social Services Union v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 498, 504 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 126 ], the City contends that the rule in question is an “indirect and insubstantial fringe benefit”—since it did not “materially or significantly affect the terms or conditions of employment”—and is therefore not subject to the meet and confer requirement.

2023(See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2015) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 [explaining that unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses when a party fails to serve a timely response is not subject to the meet and confer requirement].) 16 appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be ob

2022(See Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773 [“A ruling that constitutes an abuse of discretion has been described as one that is ‘so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it’”].) Lastly, the provisions requiring the parties to “exercise reasonable efforts to initiate a Status Conference call with the Court prior to filing an RFO” impose a procedural condition akin to a meet and confer requirement.

2013No. 219-E, at p. 11 [waiver of right to meet and negotiate may be shown by either clear and unmistakable language or demonstrable behavior]; see also Stationary Engineers v. San Juan Suburban Water Dist., supra, 90 Cal.App.3d at p. 802 [employer may change policy after employees failed to appear to discuss proposed change despite receiving written notice]; Stockton Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Stockton (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 62, 67 [union waived its right to meet and confer where public employer gave notice of proposed change in working conditions and union failed to timely invoke the meet

2013No. 219-E, at p. 11 [waiver of right to meet and negotiate may be shown by either clear and unmistakable language or demonstrable behavior]; see also Stationary Engineers v. San Juan Suburban Water Dist., supra, 90 Cal.App.3d at p. 802 [employer may change policy after employees failed to appear to discuss proposed change despite receiving written notice]; Stockton Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Stockton (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 62, 67 [union waived its right to meet and confer where public employer gave notice of proposed change in working conditions and union failed to timely invoke the meet