434.00 MEETINGS AND AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE

434.01 In General

434.01 Where an employer consistently and unreasonably refuses to provide information requested by the union's bargaining representative, submits predictably unacceptable proposals, refused to discuss mandatory subjects of bargaining, fields negotiators whose authority was not sufficiently broad to permit negotiations to proceed without undue delay, and unilaterally modified tentative agreements without good cause, the employer is unlawfully refusing to bargain collectively in good faith.

ROBERT MEYER dba MEYER TOMATOES 17 ALRB No. 17

434.01 Employer's willingness to meet and discuss all proposals does not prove good faith intent; it may show no more than desire to go through motions-- surface bargaining. (Dissent by Weiner, J.)

CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

434.01 Collective bargaining requires time and interaction for maturation of relationship between employer and union.

MONTEBELLO ROSE CO. v. ALRB (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 1

434.02 Representative For Bargaining; Authority To Reach Agreement

434.02 Employer's changing negotiators is not evidence of bad faith, where the change caused no particular delay in negotiations; the new negotiator was not so unversed in skill and knowledge as to indicate bad faith; and new negotiator was not so constrained in his lack of authority to agree on behalf of respondent as to preclude good faith bargaining. (ALJD, pp. 78-80.)

MAYFAIR PACKING COMPANY, 13 ALRB No. 20

434.02 Dissent would find bad faith bargaining based upon negotiator's unavailability and failure to return calls as well as delays in providing information.

MAYFAIR PACKING COMPANY, 13 ALRB No. 20

434.02 Employer's attorney/negotiator's subtle pattern of avoiding agreement was furthered by his lack of negotiating authority, his failure to relay information to and from his absentee principals accurately and in a timely manner, and the discrepancies between his positions at the bargaining table and in the board room.

McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

434.02 Employer's negotiator had authority and knowledge to bargain on behalf of employer; company representative was present to assist in negotiations.

PAUL W. BERTUCCIO, 10 ALRB No. 16

434.02 Although authority of Union negotiators was restricted (i.e., contract had to be ratified by membership, negotiators could not extend current contract and could not drop demand for Union run hiring facility without members' approval), this authority was not so limited as to constitute a failure to bargain.

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

434.02 Negotiators must have sufficient authority to conduct meaningful negotiations or violation of duty to bargain.

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

434.02 Negotiators not unprepared or without authority to negotiate where both sides had to confer with principals on basic policy issues despite delays caused thereby.

KAPLAN'S FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, 6 ALRB No. 36

434.02 In arguing that RD failed to conduct an adequate investigation of peak and that employer's objection should not have been dismissed without a hearing, employer failed to raise novel legal issues or important issues concerning whether election was conducted in a manner that truly protected employees' right of free choice. Therefore, makewhole remedy is warranted for employer's refusal to bargain. (J.R. Norton Co. v. ALRB (1979) 26 Cal.3d 1.)

434.03 Refusal Of Employer To Meet, Or Delay In Arranging Meetings

434.03 Delays in bargaining schedule do not show bad faith on employer's part, where at least part of the delay was attributable to the union, and union was less than vigorous in responding to employer's final offer which was on the table. (ALJD, pp. 81-82.)

MAYFAIR PACKING COMPANY, 13 ALRB No. 20

434.03 Dissent would find bad faith bargaining based upon negotiator's unavailability and failure to return calls as well as delays in providing information.

MAYFAIR PACKING COMPANY, 13 ALRB No. 20

434.03 Failure to provide a prepared negotiator who is regularly available to meet indicates a desire to delay bargaining.

SAM ANDREWS' SONS, 11 ALRB No. 5

434.03 Employer engaged in bad faith bargaining by delays, and failure to set up meetings as promised or respond to union requests to meet.

SUMNER PECK RANCH, INC., 10 ALRB No. 24

434.03 Employer engaged in surface bargaining by engaging in dilatory tactics.

PAUL W. BERTUCCIO, 10 ALRB No. 16

434.03 Delaying negotiations by canceling and being unprepared for meetings indicia of bad faith; however, record did not show why negotiations were slow nor allow analysis of parties' positions so finding of bad faith bargaining reversed. Union shared responsibility for delays, and there were indicia of E good faith, e.g., prompt scheduling of initial bargaining, complete counterproposals at second session, many meetings, and agreement on substantial number of contract provisions.

KAPLAN'S FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, 6 ALRB No. 36

434.03 Seven weeks found to be unreasonable long period for employer to commence negotiations following union's bargaining requests. MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

434.03 Employer's outright refusals to meet pending developments extrinsic to negotiations themselves (i.e., inter-union jurisdictional dispute) constituted per se violation of 1153(e)and (a). MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

434.03 Letters in which union requested preliminary meetings with each respondent constituted adequate requests or demands for bargaining. MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

434.03 Employer bargained in bad faith by failing to provide negotiator who was available and/or willing to meet at reasonable intervals. MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

434.03 Where the employer continued to farm after its duty to bargain arose, but refused to bargain with the UFW before it terminated its agricultural operations or thereafter, the Board found that he employer had refused to bargain in violation of section 1153(e). P&P Farms, 5 ALRB No. 59

434.03 The ALJ concluded respondent violated section 1153(e) and (a) of the Act by failing to provide relevant bargaining information requested by the union, failing to meet promptly and regularly, unilaterally granting wage increase and laying off employees, failing to adequately respond to union proposals, failing to bargain in good faith with respect to mandatory subjects of bargaining, excluding items previously agreed upon from a counterproposal, and submitting proposals which failed to respond to issues introduced by the union. The Board affirmed general conclusion as to violation of section 1153(e) and (a). HEMET WHOLESALE COMPANY, 4 ALRB No. 75

434.03 The duty to bargain in good faith imposes on the parties the obligation to meet and confer at reasonable times, and the use of delaying and evasive tactics is evidence of bad faith. ROBERT H. HICKAM, 4 ALRB No. 73

434.03 Unavailability of a respondent's negotiators is an indication of bad faith.

ROBERT H. HICKAM, 4 ALRB No. 73

434.03 The duty to bargain in good faith imposes on the parties the obligation to meet and confer at reasonable times, and the use of delaying and evasive tactics is evidence of bad faith. ROBERT H. HICKAM, 4 ALRB No. 73

434.04 Observers At Meetings; Transcript Of Record

434.05 Time And Place Of Meetings; Postponing Or Cutting Meetings Short

434.05 No bad faith in employer's cancellation of one negotiating session where the record did not reveal a pattern of refusals to meet or the cancellations of other meetings on the part of the employer.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. 12 ALRB No. 26

434.05 Delaying negotiations by canceling and being unprepared for meetings indicia of bad faith; however, record did not show why negotiations were slow nor allow analysis of parties' positions so finding of bad faith bargaining reversed. Union shared responsibility for delays, and there were indicia of Employer good faith, e.g., prompt scheduling of initial bargaining, complete counterproposals at second session, many meetings, and agreement on substantial number of contract provisions.

KAPLAN'S FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, 6 ALRB No. 36

434.06 "Off The Record" Communications

434.07 Multi-Union Coalition; Coordinated Bargaining; Other Unions Included In Bargaining Committee

434.08 Withdrawal Of Employer From Meetings Or Negotiations

435.00 NEGOTIATIONS; OTHER INDICIA OF GOOD FAITH BARGAINING OF EMPLOYER

435.01 In General; "Surface Bargaining;" Totality Of Employer's Conduct

435.01 Employer's changing negotiators is not evidence of bad faith, where the change caused no particular delay in negotiations; the new negotiator was not so unversed in skill and knowledge as to indicate bad faith; and new negotiator was not so constrained in his lack of authority to agree on behalf of respondent as to preclude good faith bargaining. (ALJD, pp. 78-80.)

MAYFAIR PACKING COMPANY, 13 ALRB No. 20

435.01 Board must examine employer's behavior in light of Union's conduct during negotiations including its violation of agreed-upon ground rule of a news blackout by making public the details of negotiations, instigation of a strike against employer's operations before employer completed its first set of proposals, and inflexible position based on the Sun Harvest contract, which helped set a tone of hard bargaining for subsequent negotiations. VESSEY & COMPANY, INC., 13 ALRB No. 17

435.01 Board finds that employer engaged in lawful hard bargaining where employer, despite union's inflexible bargaining strategy, modified their proposal, resulting in agreement on 33 articles.

VESSEY & COMPANY, INC., 13 ALRB No. 17

435.01 Board must examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether employer engaged in surface or hard bargaining. Board cannot rely on a scrutiny of only isolated and limited periods of bargaining.

VESSEY & COMPANY, INC., 13 ALRB No. 17

435.01 Board must examine totality of the circumstances, including parties' conduct both at and away from the bargaining table when such conduct relates to the bargaining negotiations, to determine whether party has the requisite good faith agreement to reach agreement on a contract. VESSEY & COMPANY, INC., 13 ALRB No. 17

435.01 Board has dual responsibility of assuring that parties bargain in good faith while, at the same time, giving full recognition to the statute's express acknowledgment that good faith bargaining "does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession." VESSEY & COMPANY, INC., et al.

13 ALRB No. 17

435.01 Circumstances indicate that employer was acting in disregard of the union's role as the exclusive bargaining representative of employer's agricultural employees and was engaging in conduct which could not help but frustrate the collective bargaining process.

MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.01 The Board is in danger of assuming an improper role when it relies too heavily on such factors as the importance of issues to a party and the degree of movement exhibited by either side. MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.01 Board cannot conclude that Employer was engaged in other than a course of surface bargaining during period which was not only preceded by bad faith bargaining but also followed by a lengthy period of bad faith bargaining; makewhole liability not tolled

MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.01 Given Employer's recurring and sometimes blatant acts in derogation of its basic bargaining obligations, Board concludes that Employer lacked the requisite good faith intent to reach an agreement with the Union and was engaged in an overall course of surface or bad faith bargaining.

MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.01 Failure of collective bargaining process was made inevitable by a clear pattern of bad faith conduct on the part of the Employer which included long delays in responding to Union proposals, a failure to submit counterproposals as promised, a failure to provide requested relevant information in a timely matter, and a string of unlawful unilateral wage changes; under these circumstances, Board deemed application of makewhole remedy to be appropriate.

MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.01 Board holds that Employer failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to bargain in good faith by creating inexcusable delays and by engaging in conduct indicating a conscious disregard for the Union's role as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees.

MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.01 Board has dual responsibility of assuring that parties bargain in good faith while, at the same time, giving full recognition to statutory proviso that the good faith bargaining obligation "does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession."

MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.01 Employer was guilty of refusal to bargain in good faith when viewed from the totality of its conduct, which included its refusal to bargain over acreage it was actually farming, its subcontracting out of bargaining unit work to labor contractors and custom harvesters, its refusal to bargain over a tree pruning rate and over the effects of its change in the start-up date of grape pruning, and its refusal to provide information to the union.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. 12 ALRB No. 26

435.01 Employer's attorney/negotiator continued his "active though often subtle frustration of the bargaining process" by agreeing to particular provisions or agreeing not to recommend against them, in fact recommending against them, and delaying announcement of their rejection by company principals in Chicago.

McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.01 In determining the duration of the makewhole period, post-liability hearing conduct that bears a close resemblance to pre-hearing conduct will inevitably be colored by the Board's previous findings, making it that much more difficult for the employer to show it was no longer operating in bad faith.

McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.01 Where Board's underlying finding of surface bargaining was grounded on employer's attorney/negotiator's "subtle but active" style of frustrating the negotiations as well as direct evidence of employer's agent's intent to delay, fact that pre-hearing unilateral wage increases and direct dealing did not continue after unfair labor practices hearing does not indicate good faith.

McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.01 Employer's attorney/negotiator's admission at compliance hearing that he did not know and his position would not be affected by information as to how MLK funds expended, as well as employer's refusal to accept condition negotiated, constitutes indication that its section 1155.4 defense to MLK not taken in good faith.

McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.01 Fact that contract ultimately signed with union, rather than signifying good faith, was attributable to the combination of employer's imminent closing and the delays generated by its attorney/negotiator's bad faith bargaining conduct.

McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.01 Board declined to judge employer by nature and quantity of concessions or refusals to concede during post-hearing bargaining, instead analyzing employer's post-hearing conduct in the total context of its bargaining history with the UFW. McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.01 Although the Board must review the totality of the parties' conduct, and take some cognizance of the reasonableness of the positions taken by the parties, it cannot compel agreement or concessions, or sit in judgment of the substantive terms of a contract.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 11 ALRB No. 31

435.01 Totality of circumstances shows that employer's refusal to sign agreed-upon collective bargaining contract was in bad faith, where employer knowingly misled union about its intention to be bound by the contract, and subsequent to the refusal showed no willingness to explain or discuss its problems with the contract language.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 11 ALRB No. 28

435.01 Employer violated section 1153(e) by locking out its employees and by refusing to bargain in good faith with the employees' certified bargaining representative.

WEST FOODS, INC., 11 ALRB No. 17

435.01 Manner in which unilateral wage change was implemented and employer's bargaining over issue of union security, when taken together, result in a totality of circumstances indicating that employer was in fact seeking to frustrate negotiations and avoid signing a contract.

WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC., 11 ALRB No. 13

435.01 Bad faith bargaining found where employer declared premature impasse, raised wages unilaterally, delayed in providing information, provided an unprepared and/or unavailable negotiator, failed to use care in reviewing its own proposals, failed to respond to substantial countermovement, and took untenable position on specific legal issue. SAM ANDREWS' SONS, 11 ALRB No. 5

435.01 Employer engaged in bad faith bargaining by delays, failure to set up meetings as promised or respond to union requests to meet, and failure to offer counterproposals; by disregarding union's role as employees' exclusive representative by resisting union proposals in order to preserve a "family-like" relationship between employer and employees; and by declarations of impasse, as well as refusal to provide union with relevant information and instituting unilateral wage increases without notice to the union.

SUMNER PECK RANCH, INC., 10 ALRB No. 24

435.01 Defense of statute of limitations will limit makewhole remedy but evidence of bad faith bargaining prior to six- month period is relevant background for finding of violation. SUMNER PECK RANCH, INC., 10 ALRB No. 24

435.01 Bad faith inferred from employer's failure to assert, until hearing, defense that it was not bound by certification and was not successor of previous employer.

SUMNER PECK RANCH, INC., 10 ALRB No. 24

435.01 Employer engaged in surface bargaining by making predictably unacceptable proposals and engaging in dilatory tactics.

PAUL W. BERTUCCIO, 10 ALRB No. 16

435.01 Union did not remain permanently bound to a proposal based upon major concessions where employer rejected the proposal and conditions underlying union's proposals changed. PAUL W. BERTUCCIO, 10 ALRB No. 16

435.01 Employer's proposal that labor contractor employees who admittedly are covered by the certification be excluded from the terms of a proposed collective bargaining agreement is evidence of employer's bad faith.

PAUL W. BERTUCCIO, 10 ALRB No. 16

435.01 Employer's conduct in refusing to provide requested information, failing to submit economic proposals over a 19-month period, submitting only two non-economic proposals, and implementing unilateral changes constituted an unlawful refusal to bargain collectively in good faith. ROBERT H. HICKAM, 10 ALRB No. 2

435.01 Bad faith bargaining found where employer's position on union institutional needs absolute and across the board, without any willingness to compromise or accommodate; union motives distrusted and impugned and union abuse assumed, all without sufficient basis; alternatives and possibilities are neither presented nor explored; objections to a critical proposal are insincere and other proposals are sophistical; proposals are made knowing and expecting their unacceptability; and, finally, away from the bargaining table key management personnel expound theories indicating that the union's relationship to management is to be subordinated to that of management to worker. However, the employer cannot be ordered to accede to any union position or proposal; rather the employer must make some good faith effort in some direction to compose its differences and reach agreement with the union. BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.01 Bargaining is a careful, sophisticated process; rarely is there an admission of a "bad faith" intention. Violations can only be inferred from circumstantial evidence. The previous relations of the parties, antecedent events explaining behavior at the bargaining table, and the course of negotiations constitute the raw facts for reaching such a determination. The content and context of proposals and counterproposals can be circumstantial evidence from which motive or state of mind may be inferred. This evidence is useful, not as an indication of whether a specific proposal is reasonable or unreasonable, but because it may serve to disclose underlying motive, pattern or design. As such it is to be considered in combination with all of the other bargaining behavior, and not as a separate, isolated fragment. BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.01 Employer's unrelenting opposition to union-supported funds, pension plan, medical plan, hiring hall and other "institutional" items is an indication of bad faith bargaining when that opposition is based on claims that were not genuinely held by the employer; employer's opposition was based on a pervasive belief that the union could not be trusted to honestly carry out its duties as exclusive representative, and this mistrust was not based firmly on facts, but was, instead, a smoke screen to conceal a resolve to avoid any concession in this area.

BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.01 An employer who merely gives the appearance of bargaining, but has no intention of reaching an agreement, acts in bad faith and violates section 1153(e). GROW-ART, 9 ALRB No. 67

435.01 Where the Board specifically included packing shed workers in the bargaining unit, the certified bargaining representative has a duty to represent those workers, and the employer's attempt to have the bargaining representative voluntarily exclude the packing shed workers from the unit was contrary to the purposes of the Act. GROW-ART, 9 ALRB No. 67

435.01 No bad faith bargaining found where, although employer exhibited some indicia of bad faith, the totality of circumstances showed that the employer desired to reach agreement, and that there were indications that the union was not at all times doing everything in its power to reach agreement.

D'ARRIGO BROTHERS OF CALIFORNIA, 9 ALRB No. 51

435.01 Employer bargained in bad faith by insisting that all agreements be tentative, by withdrawing numerous agreed-upon articles, by declaring impasse prematurely, and by its disingenuous claim that the union had lost its majority. ROBERTS FARMS, INC., 9 ALRB No. 27

435.01 Board unwilling to infer bad faith from wage offers where employer, who was in a relatively strong bargaining position, did display some flexibility on economic issues.

WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC., 9 ALRB No. 4

435.01 Intent of parties in unfair bargaining case must nearly always be determined from circumstantial evidence.

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.01 In unfair bargaining case, must look to totality of circumstances both at and away from table.

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.01 Use of package approach to bargaining where parties did not discuss proposals on all major contract items indicated bad faith in view of particular bargaining history (e.g., short relationship, complexity of issues).

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.01 Hindsight appropriate for finding good or bad faith in bargaining ULP. [See Montebello Rose, 5 ALRB No. 64, p. 14-15]

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.01 In assessing good or bad faith in negotiations, Board considers totality of the circumstances.

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.01 Presence or absence of intent to bargain in good faith must be discerned from totality of circumstances, including review of parties' conduct both at bargaining table and away from it.

MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.01 Board must evaluate evidence as whole to determine whether respondent engaged in mere surface bargaining without sincere desire to reach agreement, or bargained in good faith but were unable to arrive at agreement acceptable to all parties. NLRB v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co. (1st Cir. 1953) 205 F.2d 131 cert. den.346 U.S. 887.

MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.01 Where it appeared from totality of employer's conduct that it had bargained in bad faith for fifteen months, employer's willingness to meet and agree on some contract items in weeks just prior to hearing did not show significant change in its past unlawful conduct.

MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.01 Act requires more than meeting and going through motions of negotiating. A. H. Belo Corporation (1968) 170 NLRB 1558.

MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.01 Board rejects ALO treatment of separate periods of bargaining as discrete units in evaluating employer's intent. Employer's intent must be discerned from totality of conduct during entire course of negotiations. All aspects of parties' bargaining and related conduct are to be considered comprehensively, not as separate fragments assessed in isolation from one another.

MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.01 Whether a party bargained in food faith is determined by examining the totality for its conduct. The Board must decide whether the party acted with a "bonafide intent to reach an agreement if agreement [was] possible." Atlas Mills, 3 ALRB No. 10, 1 LRRM 60 (1937); West Coast Casket Company, 192 NLRB 624, 78 LRRM 1026 (1971); enf'd in part 469 F.2d 871, 81 LRRM 1857 (9th Cir. 1972).

AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.01 "Conduct reflecting a rejection of the principle of collective bargaining . . . , in the Board's view, manifests the absence of a genuine desire to compose differences and to reach agreement in the manner the Act commands." See Akron Novelty Mfg. Co., 224 NLRB 998.

AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.01 The employer violated sections 1153(e) and (a) by is course of bargaining conduct including postponing meetings, changing negotiators, delaying discussion on substantive issues, failing to present adequate contract proposals, requiring individuals to sign a "no-strike" agreement and by various independent per se violations. O.P. MURPHY'S SONS (1979) 5 ALRB No. 63

435.01 Surface bargaining involves pretense or appearance of good faith when genuine desire to reach agreement is lacking. Hard bargaining involves holding firm on positions sincerely held, though impasse results.

WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 541

435.01 State of mind--the key issue in bad-faith bargaining case--is not question of law but of fact, and is most often established by circumstantial evidence. Such determinations must be made on basis of totality of circumstances.

WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 541

435.01 Determination of intent in bargaining case must be founded upon party's overall conduct and totality of the circumstances, as distinguished from individual pieces forming part of mosaic.

CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.01 Totality of circumstances test requires consideration of union's conduct during negotiations, such as: refusing to meet with mediator; calling a strike before making a complete proposal; failing to make other than minor concessions; using publicity to put employer in bad light; and engaging in serious strike misconduct and violence.

CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.01 Board finding of bad faith bargaining overturned where employer did not make take-it-or-leave-it offer, bargained to impasse over crucial issue of economics, genuinely believed that their economic proposal was controlled by then-existing presidential wage and price guidelines, and only communicated their views about status of negotiations in advertisements directed to employees.

CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.01 Collective bargaining requires time and interaction for maturation of relationship between employer and union. MONTEBELLO ROSE CO. v. ALRB (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 1

435.02 Arbitration Or Mediation, Submission To

435.02 Union's failure to agree to Employer proposal that federal mediator be brought in not evidence of bad faith especially where proposal was tied to Employer's position that it was bound by federal guidelines which it asserted but did not believe.

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.02 Arbitration is a laudable and expeditious means by which to resolve disputes over interpretation which were unforeseeable at time agreement was reached. TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC. v. ALRB (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 906

435.03 Concessions; Right To Reject Proposals; Adamant Position; Predictably Unacceptable Offer

435.03 So long as employer did not outright refuse to bargain with union upon the filing of a decertification petition, there is nothing unlawful in its hoping that the election might facilitate agreement on its terms, when, in fact, the union took it into account in making its own concessions. MAYFAIR PACKING COMPANY 13 ALRB No. 20

435.03 Board finds that employer engaged in lawful hard bargaining where employer, despite union's inflexible bargaining strategy, modified their proposal, resulting in agreement on 33 articles.

VESSEY & COMPANY, INC., et al. 13 ALRB No. 17

435.03 Employer's adamant refusal to agree to MLK Fund and second year pension indicated bad faith when viewed in context of attorney/negotiator's conduct.

McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.03 Either party is entitled to use its economic strength to achieve the most favorable terms possible. TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 11 ALRB No. 31

435.03 The fact that a proposal may be deemed predictably unacceptable, in the sense that the other side would clearly prefer a different term, is alone insufficient to establish that the required posture of good faith is lacking.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 11 ALRB No. 31

435.03 Board rejects ALJ's finding of bad faith bargaining in that it relies too heavily on assessment of the adequacy of employer's wage and health plan offers and on conduct away from the table which had no apparent effect on conduct at the table.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 11 ALRB No. 31

435.03 Bad faith bargaining found where employer declared premature impasse, raised wages unilaterally, delayed in providing information, provided an unprepared and/or unavailable negotiator, failed to use care in reviewing its own proposals, failed to respond to substantial countermovement, and took untenable position on specific legal issue. SAM ANDREWS' SONS, 11 ALRB No. 5

435.03 Employer engaged in surface bargaining by making predictably unacceptable proposals.

PAUL W. BERTUCCIO, 10 ALRB No. 16

435.03 Employer's unrelenting opposition to union-supported funds, pension plan, medical plan, hiring hall and other "institutional" items is an indication of bad faith bargaining when that opposition is based on claims that were not genuinely held by the employer; employer's opposition was based on a pervasive belief that the union could not be trusted to honestly carry out its duties as exclusive representative, and this mistrust was not based firmly on facts, but was, instead, a smoke screen to conceal a resolve to avoid any concession in this area.

BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.03 Bad faith bargaining found where employer's position on union institutional needs absolute and across the board, without any willingness to compromise or accommodate; union motives distrusted and impugned and union abuse assumed, all without sufficient basis; alternatives and possibilities are neither presented nor explored; objections to a critical proposal are insincere and other proposals are sophistical; proposals are made knowing and expecting their unacceptability; and, finally, away from the bargaining table key management personnel expound theories indicating that the union's relationship to management is to be subordinated to that of management to worker. However, the employer cannot be ordered to accede to any union position or proposal; rather the employer must make some good faith effort in some direction to compose its differences and reach agreement with the union. BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.03 Employer did not bargain in bad faith by holding firm on its proposal that agreement last for five years; employer made reasonable argument for duration, offered wage concessions to compensate for extra duration, and reached agreement on most other issues.

TMY FARMS, INC., 9 ALRB No. 10

435.03 Board unwilling to infer bad faith from wage offers where employer, who was in a relatively strong bargaining position, did display some flexibility on economic issues. WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC., 9 ALRB No. 4

435.03 Respondent's unreasonable and adamant positions with respect to issues of successorship and union security together with its granting of a unilateral wage increase, constituted failure and refusal to bargain in good faith.

WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC., 9 ALRB No. 4

435.03 Although Employer's economic counterproposals cut back on many Union prerogatives in prior contract, fact should not be taken as evidence of bad faith. Board does not judge substantive terms of parties' bargaining proposals.

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.03 No finding of bad faith based on parties' inability to compromise on hiring hall, even though reasonable compromises of parties' positions were proposed, because no evidence why proposals not accepted.

KAPLAN'S FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, 6 ALRB No. 36

435.03 Outright rejection of a union proposal without any attempt to explain or to minimize differences, is inconsistent with a bona fide desire to reach an agreement. See Akron Novelty Mfg. Co., 224 NLRB 998, 93 LRRM 1106 (1976).

AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.03 Employer's firm or unwavering stand on issue is not, in itself, contrary to good faith bargaining. CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.03 Employer may insist on inclusion or exclusion of contract term forever, so long as insistence is genuine and sincerely held and not mere window dressing. CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.03 Board finding that employer took an untenable legal position was supported by substantial evidence where several grower representatives testified they knew federal wage guidelines were voluntary and guidelines on their face were obviously voluntary. (Dissent by Weiner, J.) CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.03 Board finding that employer made take-it-or-leave-it offer supported by substantial evidence where employers' characterized last proposal as "serious", presented it signed to union, summarily rejected union's counter offer, declared impasse, and immediately launched a widespread publicity campaign to gain employee and public support. (Dissent by Weiner, J.) CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.03 Board is statutorily precluded, under 1155.2(a), from forcing agreement on any contract term, regardless of rationale invoked to support such action. TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC. v. ALRB (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 906

435.04 Counterproposals; Sufficiency Of Company Offer; Failure To Explain Proposal

435.04 Board finds that employer engaged in lawful hard bargaining where employer, despite union's inflexible bargaining strategy, modified their proposal, resulting in agreement on 33 articles.

VESSEY & COMPANY, INC., et al. 13 ALRB No. 17

435.04 Employer did not fail or refuse to explain its proposals or to respond to union proposals.

SAM ANDREWS' SONS, 11 ALRB No. 5

435.04 Employer engaged in bad faith bargaining by failure to offer counter-proposals.

SUMNER PECK RANCH, INC., 10 ALRB No. 24

435.04 Employer's conduct in refusing to provide requested information, failing to submit economic proposals over a 19-month period, submitting only two non-economic proposals, and implementing unilateral changes constituted an unlawful refusal to bargain collectively in good faith. ROBERT H. HICKAM, 10 ALRB No. 2

435.04 Employer's unrelenting opposition to union-supported funds, pension plan, medical plan, hiring hall and other "institutional" items is an indication of bad faith bargaining when that opposition is based on claims that were not genuinely held by the employer; employer's opposition was based on a pervasive belief that the union could not be trusted to honestly carry out its duties as exclusive representative, and this mistrust was not based firmly on facts, but was, instead, a smoke screen to conceal a resolve to avoid any concession in this area.

BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.04 Bad faith bargaining found where employer's position on union institutional needs absolute and across the board, without any willingness to compromise or accommodate; union motives distrusted and impugned and union abuse assumed, all without sufficient basis; alternatives and possibilities are neither presented nor explored; objections to a critical proposal are insincere and other proposals are sophistical; proposals are made knowing and expecting their unacceptability; and, finally, away from the bargaining table key management personnel expound theories indicating that the union's relationship to management is to be subordinated to that of management to worker.However, the employer cannot be ordered to accede to any union position or proposal; rather the employer must make some good faith effort in some direction to compose its differences and reach agreement with the union. BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.04 Board unwilling to infer bad faith from wage offers where employer, who was in a relatively strong bargaining position, did display some flexibility on economic issues. WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC., 9 ALRB No. 4

435.04 Employers engaged in bad faith negotiation when they predicated their economic proposals on federal limitations on wage increases when they did not believe their proposals were so limited.Good faith requires that parties' claims be honestly maintained.

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.04 Employer bargained in bad faith where its package proposals, at late stages of negotiation showed that employer was not making reasonable efforts to improve differences with union, in light of parties' stated priorities, and where its response to union proposals was unreasoned. MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.04 Delay in submitting counter proposals constitutes evidence of bad faith bargaining. See Lawrence Textile Shrinking Co., Inc., 235 NLRB No. 163, 98 LRRM 1129 (1978). AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.04 The ALJ concluded respondent violated section 1153(e) and (a) of the Act by failing to provide relevant bargaining information requested by the union, failing to meet promptly and regularly, unilaterally granting wage increase and laying off employees, failing to adequately respond to union proposals, failing to bargain in good faith with respect to mandatory subjects of bargaining, excluding items previously agreed upon from a counterproposal, and submitting proposals which failed to respond to issues introduced by the union. The Board affirmed general conclusion as to violation of section 1153(e) and (a).

HEMET WHOLESALE COMPANY, 4 ALRB No. 75

435.04 Company refused to bargain in good faith over dues check-off proposal where negotiator simply refused on basis of bookkeeping costs but never even attempted to determine what actual costs would be. Moreover, company's cost-related objection was belied by adamance in face of union efforts to reduce total cost of contract. WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 541

435.04 Employer was not in bad faith in rejecting union's successorship clause, since employer had reason to believe that such language would make it difficult to sell company, and since it was unclear, at time of negotiations, whether ALRB would apply NLRB rule that successors are not bound by predecessors' contracts.

WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 541

435.05 Dilatory Or Evasive Tactics

435.05 Employer's changing negotiators is not evidence of bad faith, where the change caused no particular delay in negotiations; the new negotiator was not so unversed in skill and knowledge as to indicate bad faith; and new negotiator was not so constrained in his lack of authority to agree on behalf of respondent as to preclude good faith bargaining.(ALJD, pp. 78-80.)

MAYFAIR PACKING COMPANY, 13 ALRB No. 20

435.05 Board holds that Employer failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to bargain in good faith by creating inexcusable delays and by engaging in conduct indicating a conscious disregard for the Union's role as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees. MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.05 After hiatus in bargaining which is not the result of bad faith, parties are deemed to share responsibility for resumption of bargaining.

MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.05 Lengthy period of delay in bargaining attributed to employer's failure to provide its promised response.

MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.05 After the unfair labor practice hearing, employer's attorney/negotiator continued his pre-hearing delaying practices by shifting positions and injecting new obstacles to agreement in the guise of "clarifying" previous agreements, delaying responses to union proposals and inquiries and leading the union to believe he had agreed to proposals later rejected by his principals. McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.05 Employer engaged in deliberate stalling tactics intended either to avoid reaching a contract before it closed or to lead the union on until imminent closure eliminated union bargaining power.

McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.05 Employer engaged in bad faith bargaining by delays, failure to set up meetings as promised or respond to union requests to meet.

SUMNER PECK RANCH, INC., 10 ALRB No. 24

435.05 Employer engaged in surface bargaining by engaging in dilatory tactics.

PAUL W. BERTUCCIO, 10 ALRB No. 16

435.05 Employer's conduct in refusing to provide requested information, failing to submit economic proposals over a 19-month period, submitting only two non-economic proposals, and implementing unilateral changes constituted an unlawful refusal to bargain collectively in good faith. ROBERT H. HICKAM, 10 ALRB No. 2

435.05 Delaying negotiations by canceling and being unprepared for meetings indicia of bad faith; however, record did not show why negotiations were slow nor allow analysis of parties' positions so finding of bad faith bargaining reversed. Union shared responsibility for delays, and there were indicia of Employer good faith, e.g., prompt scheduling of initial bargaining, complete counterproposals at second session, many meetings, and agreement on substantial number of contract provisions.

KAPLAN'S FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, 6 ALRB No. 36

435.05 Failure of Union to make firm wage proposal for 19 months did not sustain finding of bad faith but did contribute to delay. No showing Union was trying to avoid reaching contract.

KAPLAN'S FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, 6 ALRB No. 36

435.05 Seven weeks found to be unreasonably long period for employer to commence negotiations following union's bargaining requests.

MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.05 Delay in submitting counter proposals constitutes evidence of bad faith bargaining. See Lawrence Textile Shrinking Co., Inc., 235 NLRB No. 163, 98 LRRM 1129 (1978).

AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.05 The employer violated sections 1153(e) and (a) by is course of bargaining conduct including postponing meetings, changing negotiators, delaying discussion on substantive issues, failing to present adequate contract proposals, requiring individuals to sign a "no-strike" agreement and by various independent per se violations.

O.P. MURPHY'S SONS (1979) 5 ALRB No. 63

435.05 The ALJ concluded respondent violated section 1153(e) and (a) of the Act by failing to provide relevant bargaining information requested by the union, failing to meet promptly and regularly, unilaterally granting wage increase and laying off employees, failing to adequately respond to union proposals, failing to bargain in good faith with respect to mandatory subjects of bargaining, excluding items previously agreed upon from a counterproposal, and submitting proposals which failed to respond to issues introduced by the union. The Board affirmed general conclusion as to violation of section 1153(e) and (a).

HEMET WHOLESALE COMPANY, 4 ALRB No. 75

435.06 Discussion Of Proposals; Duration Of Or Time Limit On Negotiations; Ground Rules

435.06 Use of package approach to bargaining where parties did not discuss proposals on all major contract items indicated bad faith in view of particular bargaining history (e.g., short relationship, complexity of issues).

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.06 No violation of Act for Employer to demand complete proposal with both economic and non-economic provisions before making counters to Union's non-economic proposals.

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.06 Employer bargained in bad faith where its package proposals, at late stages of negotiation showed that employer was not making reasonable efforts to improve differences with union, in light of parties' stated priorities, and where its response to union proposals was unreasoned.

MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.06 Outright rejection of a union proposal without any attempt to explain or to minimize differences, is inconsistent with a bona fide desire to reach an agreement. See Akron Novelty Mfg. Co., 224 NLRB 998, 93 LRRM 1106 (1976). AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.07 Inconsistent Positions Taken; Withdrawal Of Offers Or Concessions

435.07 Union not held to have engaged in regressive bargaining; a return to an old proposal, standing alone, does not constitute bad faith bargaining.

MARIO SAIKHON, INC. 13 ALRB No. 8

435.07 Union did not remain permanently bound to a proposal based upon major concessions where employer rejected the proposal and conditions underlying union's proposals changed. PAUL W. BERTUCCIO, 10 ALRB No. 16

435.07 Employer bargained in bad faith by insisting that all agreements be tentative, by withdrawing numerous agreed-upon articles, by declaring impasse prematurely, and by its disingenuous claim that the union had lost its majority. ROBERTS FARMS, INC., 9 ALRB No. 27

435.07 Unilateral withdrawal of tentative agreements without good cause is indicative of bad faith bargaining, not withstanding the tentative nature of the agreements.

ARAKELIAN FARMS, 9 ALRB No. 25

435.07 The ALJ concluded respondent violated section 1153(e) and (a) of the Act by failing to provide relevant bargaining information requested by the union, failing to meet promptly and regularly, unilaterally granting wage increase and laying off employees, failing to adequately respond to union proposals, failing to bargain in good faith with respect to mandatory subjects of bargaining, excluding items previously agreed upon from a counterproposal, and submitting proposals which failed to respond to issues introduced by the union. The Board affirmed general conclusion as to violation of section 1153(e) and (a).HEMET WHOLESALE COMPANY, 4 ALRB No. 75

435.07 Company refused to bargain in good faith over dues check-off proposal where negotiator simply refused on basis of bookkeeping costs but never even attempted to determine with actual costs would be. Moreover, company's cost- related objection was belied by adamance in face of union efforts to reduce total cost of contract. WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 541

435.08 Conduct Away From The Table; Prior Unfair Labor Practices

435.08 Board must examine totality of the circumstances, including parties' conduct both at and away from the bargaining table when such conduct relates to the bargaining negotiations, to determine whether party has the requisite good faith agreement to reach agreement on a contract. VESSEY & COMPANY, INC., et al. 13 ALRB No. 17

435.08 Board holds that Employer failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to bargain in good faith by creating inexcusable delays and by engaging in conduct indicating a conscious disregard for the Union's role as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees. MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.08 Unlawful unilateral changes in wage rates constitute evidence of bad faith.

MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.08 Employer showed bad faith by failing, as required by expired labor agreement, to inform union of its intention to prune the prune trees in time (30 days in advance of the start-up of the season) for union to negotiate rate.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. 12 ALRB No. 26

435.08 But the mere setting of a piece rate without consultation with the union was not a unilateral change since the expired labor agreement contemplated either a piece rate or an hourly wage.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 12 ALRB No. 26

435.08 Where Board's underlying finding of surface bargaining was grounded on employer's attorney/negotiator's "subtle but active" style of frustrating the negotiations as well as direct evidence of employer's agent's intent to delay, fact that pre-hearing unilateral wage increases and direct dealing did not continue after unfair labor practices hearing does not indicate good faith.

McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.08 Board rejects ALJ's finding of bad faith bargaining in that it relies too heavily on assessment of the adequacy of employer's wage and health plan offers and on conduct away from the table which had no apparent effect on conduct at the table.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 11 ALRB No. 31

435.08 Employer's conduct away from the table, while complicating the union's bargaining task, outweighed by conduct at the table which reflected employer's intent to reach agreement.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 11 ALRB No. 31

435.08 Board relied in part on employer's previous unlawful unilateral changes as evidence of employer's overall bad faith.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 11 ALRB No. 28

435.08 Employer engaged in bad faith bargaining by instituting unilateral wage increases without notice to the union.

SUMNER PECK RANCH, INC., 10 ALRB No. 24

435.08 Employer's conduct in refusing to provide requested information, failing to submit economic proposals over a 19-month period, submitting only two non-economic proposals, and implementing unilateral changes constituted an unlawful refusal to bargain collectively in good faith. ROBERT H. HICKAM, 10 ALRB No. 2

435.08 Letters by the employer to its employees describing ongoing negotiations, while not as free from regulation as communications to the public, are not an indication of bad faith bargaining unless they contain information or proposals not discussed in negotiations or suggest repudiation of the union and direct dealing with management. BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.08 Respondent's unreasonable and adamant positions with respect to issues of successorship and union security together with its granting of a unilateral wage increase, constituted failure and refusal to bargain in good faith.

WILLIAM DAL PORTO & SONS, INC., 9 ALRB No. 4

435.08 Conduct away from bargaining table reflects on good faith at table. Nonetheless, inadequate evidence of surface bargaining; dismissal of pro-Union crew leader just before negotiations and two unilateral wage increases not sufficient to find overall bad faith.

KAPLAN'S FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, 6 ALRB No. 36

435.08 Certain employer acts and conduct (unilateral wage changes and refusal to provide information) found to constitute per se refusals to bargain regardless of employer's overall intent to reach agreement. Such conduct held to be also evidence of bad faith.

MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.08 Presence or absence of intent to bargain in good faith must be discerned from totality of circumstances, including review of parties' conduct both at bargaining table and away from it.

MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.08 In determining whether a party has bargained in good faith, the Board may consider its prior unfair labor practices. Hecks, Inc., 172 NLRB 2231, 69 LRRM 1177 (1968), affirmed 433 F.2d 541, 74 LRRM 2109 (D.C. Cir. 1970), and Crystal Springs Shirt Co., 229 NLRB 4, 95 LRRM 1038 (1977).) AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.09 Circumvention Of Union; "Direct Dealing" With Employees; "Boulwarism"

435.09 Where Board's underlying finding of surface bargaining was grounded on employer's attorney/negotiator's "subtle but active" style of frustrating the negotiations as well as direct evidence of employer's agent's intent to delay, fact that pre-hearing unilateral wage increases and direct dealing did not continue after unfair labor practices hearing does not indicate good faith.

McFARLAND ROSE PRODUCTION, 11 ALRB No. 34

435.09 Letters by the employer to its employees describing ongoing negotiations, while not as free from regulation as communications to the public, are not an indication of bad faith bargaining unless they contain information or proposals not discussed in negotiations or suggest repudiation of the union and direct dealing with management. BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.09 Negotiations focussing not on wages nor managerial prerogatories but rather the "institutional demands" of the union are not conducted in good faith when the employer leaves the area of the strength of the bond between the worker and the union as it impacts on economics and management flexibility and usurps the duty of the union to act as the exclusive representative of the workers. BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.09 Employer's public relations campaign wherein it bypassed Union and communicated (through publicity) directly with Employees, disparaged Union and Employer engaged in other tactics constituting "Boulwarism" was per se violation of section 1153(e).

ADMIRAL PACKING CO., et al, 7 ALRB No. 43

435.09 Where an employer bypasses the certified bargaining representative by negotiating directly with the employees, it is irrelevant who originated the idea for discussion or requested the meetings. Popular Volkswagen 205 NLRB 441, 84 LRRM 1002 (1973); Medo Photo Supply Corp., 321 U.S. 678. AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.09 The Act makes it the duty of the employer to bargain collectively with the chosen representative of his employees. As the obligation is exclusive, it demands "the negative duty to treat with no other."Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 14 LRRM 581 (1944).

AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.09 Where an employer negotiated directly with the employees, it "was not relieved of its obligations because the employees asked that they be disregarded. The statute was enacted in the public interest for the protection of the employees' right to collective bargaining and it may not be ignored by the employer, even though the employees consent. "Medo Photo Supply, 321 U.S. 678.

AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.09 Employer did not bargain in bad faith or engage in "Boulwarism" by launching major publicity campaign, since employers' campaign was limited to publicizing sincerely held bargaining position, employee showed willingness to negotiate on all subjects, and did not present take-it-or-leave-it position.

CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.09 Employer's advertisements and leaflets criticizing union and its bargaining position were fair expression of employer's views, protected by 1155, and not attempt to negotiate directly with workers.

CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.09 Employer engaged in "Boulwarism" by making take-it-or-leave-it offer on economics, based on false premise of mandatory federal wage guidelines, then boxing itself into that bargaining position by a wide spread publicity campaign. (Dissent by Weiner, J.)

CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.10 Usurping The Role Of Union As Representative

435.10 Employer engaged in bad faith bargaining by disregarding union's role as employees' exclusive representative by resisting union proposals in order to preserve a "family-like" relationship between employer and employees. SUMNER PECK RANCH, INC., 10 ALRB No. 24

435.10 Employer's unrelenting opposition to union-supported funds, pension plan, medical plan, hiring hall and other "institutional" items is an indication of bad faith bargaining when that opposition is based on claims that were not genuinely held by the employer; employer's opposition was based on a pervasive belief that the union could not be trusted to honestly carry out its duties as exclusive representative, and this mistrust was not based firmly on facts, but was, instead, a smoke screen to conceal a resolve to avoid any concession in this area.

BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.10 Management's unrelenting opposition to each of the union's institutional needs, if taken separately and considered in isolation, does not imply an improper motivation; but taken together, these separate instances constitute evidence which, along with other circumstances, support an inference that the employer was bargaining toward a contract which would relegate the union to a secondary role inconsistent with its right to act as the exclusive bargaining representative of workers. BRUCE CHURCH, INC., 9 ALRB No. 74

435.10 By attempting to assume the role of protector of its employees, the employer failed to recognize the union as the exclusive representative of the employees as required by law. AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.10 Employer's proposal of ballot clause such as the one described in Borg-Warner, 365 U.S. 342, 42 LRRM 2036 (1958) was not in itself unlawful, but provides indication of bad faith bargaining.

AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.10 It is a basic principle of collective bargaining under the ALRA that the certified collective bargaining representative is the exclusive representative of the employees and that the employer may not assume that role. Montebello Rose Co. and Mount Arbor Nurseries, Inc., 5 ALRB No. 64 (1979); NLRB v. General Electric Co., 418 F.2d 736, 72 LRRM 2530 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 965 (1970). AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.10 Employer's advertisements and leaflets criticizing union and its bargaining position were fair expression of employer's views, protected by 1155, and not attempt to negotiate directly with workers.

CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.11 Failure To Treat Bargaining Obligation As Seriously As Other Business Obligations; Negligent Mistakes

435.11 Dissent would find bad faith bargaining based upon negotiator's unavailability and failure to return calls as well as delays in providing information.

MAYFAIR PACKING COMPANY, 13 ALRB No. 20

435.11 Negligence in preparing proposals indicates lack of seriousness about reaching agreement where employer erroneously made concessions, then withdrew them.

SAM ANDREWS' SONS, 11 ALRB No. 5

435.11 Act requires more than meeting and going through motions of negotiating. A. H. Belo Corporation (1968) 170 NLRB 1558. MASAJI ETO, et al., 6 ALRB No. 20

435.11 Inadequate preparation for bargaining indicates a lack of good faith. AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.12 Conditions Placed On Negotiations

435.12 Employer's attempts to limit his presence at a negotiating session it requested, to a posture of less than full bargaining, were ineffective to preserve a technical refusal to bargain posture asserted previously.

0. E. MAYOU & SONS, 11 ALRB No. 25

435.12 Employer's conditioning of bargaining over employees in the bargaining unit on concessions from the union is a per se violation of the duty to bargain. PAUL W. BERTUCCIO, 10 ALRB No. 16

435.12 Employer bargained in bad faith by insisting that all agreements be tentative, by withdrawing numerous agreed-upon articles, by declaring impasse prematurely, and by its disingenuous claim that the union had lost its majority.

ROBERTS FARMS, INC., 9 ALRB No. 27

435.12 Conditioning bargaining on withdrawal of ULP charges is ULP, but no violation of Act where Employer continued negotiations in spite of ultimatum.

KAPLAN'S FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY, 6 ALRB No. 36

435.12 Board finding that employer took an untenable legal position was supported by substantial evidence where several grower representatives testified they knew federal wage guidelines were voluntary and guidelines on their face were obviously voluntary. (Dissent by Weiner, J.) CARL JOSEPH MAGGIO, INC. v. ALRB (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 40

435.13 Refusal To Provide Or Delay In Providing Information (see also section 436.02)

435.13 ALJ takes no account of respondent's delay in providing information since it is clear that such delay as is evident had no effect on the parties' positions. (ALJD, p. 83, n. 89.)

MAYFAIR PACKING COMPANY, 13 ALRB No. 20

435.13 Dissent would find bad faith bargaining based upon negotiator's unavailability and failure to return calls as well as delays in providing information.

MAYFAIR PACKING COMPANY, 13 ALRB No. 20

435.13 Board holds that Employer failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to bargain in good faith by creating inexcusable delays and by engaging in conduct indicating a conscious disregard for the Union's role as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees.

MARIO SAIKHON, INC., 13 ALRB No. 8

435.13 No unwarranted delay or prejudice to union in employer's handling of request for crew leader information.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., 11 ALRB No. 31

435.13 Although employer ultimately provided requested information, delay indicated a lack of good faith in

SAM ANDREWS' SONS, 11 ALRB No. 5

435.13 Employer engaged in bad faith bargaining by refusal to provide union with relevant information.

SUMNER PECK RANCH, INC., 10 ALRB No. 24

435.13 Employer fulfilled its duty to provide relevant information even though it did not provide the information in the form requested.

PAUL W. BERTUCCIO, 10 ALRB No. 16

435.13 Employer's conduct in refusing to provide requested information, failing to submit economic proposals over a 19-month period, submitting only two non-economic proposals, and implementing unilateral changes constituted an unlawful refusal to bargain collectively in good faith. ROBERT H. HICKAM, 10 ALRB No. 2

435.13 Employer's substantial, consistent and unreasonable refusal to provide the bargaining representative with information requested leads to clear inference that employer's illegality was conscious and in bad faith. CARDINAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC., et al.,

9 ALRB No. 36

435.13 An employer's belated compilation of union-requested bargaining information evidences bad faith bargaining.

AS-H-NE FARMS (1980) 6 ALRB No. 9

435.13 The employer violated sections 1153(e) and (a) by instituting unilateral wage increases, by unilaterally implementing a new policy for paying employees, and by refusing to provide the union with production and yield information, which was relevant and necessary to wage negotiations. O.P. MURPHY'S SONS (1979) 5 ALRB No. 63

435.13 Respondent's failure to provide the relevant information sought is a further indication of respondent's bad faith and constitutes a further refusal to bargain.

ROBERT H. HICKAM, 4 ALRB No. 73

435.14 Failure To Provide Post-Certification Access To Union (see also section 401.08)

435.14 Employer's insistence, contrary to past practice, that the union had to file a formal notice before access would be granted was an indication of bad faith.

TEX-CAL LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. 12 ALRB No. 26

435.14 Since the employer was able to show that the Union had adequate,alternative means of contacting its employees following the Union's certification, the employer did not violate the Act when it denied the Union past-certification access.

SUNNYSIDE NURSERIES, INC., 6 ALRB No. 52

PREVIOUS SECTION | NEXT SECTION

Digest Intro |  Complete TOC  |  Case List  |  ALRB Top  |  APMP Home