The other decisions cited by PERB are similar. (Kern Community College Dist. (1983) PERB Dec. No. 337E at p. 6 [7 PERC ¶ the District was unsure as to 14229] [“if the object of the requests, the duty to bargain in good faith behooved it as a Association’s minimum to seek clarification of the Jefferson School Dist. Association’s position”]; (1980) PERB Dec. No. 133E at p. 11 [4 PERC ¶ hearing 11117] [“the officer’s instruction requires the employer receiving a proposal to make a good-faith effort to seek clarification of questionable terms and proposals, to voice its reasons for believing that a proposal is outside scope, and to enter into negotiations on those aspects of proposals which it finally views as covered . . .”].) Recent PERB decisions have also summarized the same principle set forth by PERB in its present decision. In (2013) PERB Dec. No. 2321M, County of Santa Clara PERB cited to and noted that a objecting that a proposal is beyond Healdsburg “party scope of representation must make good faith effort at clarification by voicing its specific reasons for believing proposal is outside the scope of representation and entering into negotiations on those aspects of proposal which, after clarification, it views as (Id. at pp. 31-32.) negotiable.” Based on the foregoing, we do not believe PERB failed to follow its own precedents when coming to its conclusion here. As in where the district Rio Hondo, believed the union sought to negotiate over a non-negotiable subject, here the City had a duty, as explained in and the other cases cited above, to voice reasons for Healdsburg why it believed binding arbitration was outside the scope of representation. As articulated in the objecting party need not to a fall with every Healdsburg, “wrestle ambiguity, or search out every negotiable or objectionable word or phrase.” (Healdsburg, PERB Dec. No. 375 at p. 10.) And as stated in the supra, Rio Hondo, employer may ultimately refuse to negotiate following clarification. It may also avoid
The other decisions cited by PERB are similar. (Kern Community College Dist. (1983) PERB Dec. No. 337E at p. 6 [7 PERC ¶ 14229] [“if the District was unsure as to the object of the Association’s requests, the duty to bargain in good faith behooved it as a minimum to seek clarification of the Association’s position”]; Jefferson School Dist. (1980) PERB Dec. No. 133E at p. 11 [4 PERC ¶ 11117] [“the hearing officer’s instruction requires the employer receiving a proposal to make a good-faith effort to seek clarification of questionable terms and proposals, to voice its reasons for believing that a proposal is outside scope, and to enter into negotiations on those aspects of proposals which it finally views as covered . . .”].) Recent PERB decisions have also summarized the same principle set forth by PERB in its present decision. In County of Santa Clara (2013) PERB Dec. No. 2321M, PERB cited to Healdsburg and noted that a “party objecting that a proposal is beyond scope of representation must make good faith effort at clarification by voicing its specific reasons for believing proposal is outside the scope of representation and entering into negotiations on those aspects of proposal which, after clarification, it views as negotiable.” (Id. at pp. 31-32.) Based on the foregoing, we do not believe PERB failed to follow its own precedents when coming to its conclusion here. As in Rio Hondo, where the district believed the union sought to negotiate over a non-negotiable subject, here the City had a duty, as explained in Healdsburg and the other cases cited above, to voice reasons for why it believed binding arbitration was outside the scope of representation. As articulated in Healdsburg, the objecting party need not “wrestle to a fall with every ambiguity, or search out every negotiable or objectionable word or phrase.” (Healdsburg, supra, PERB Dec. No. 375 at p. 10.) And as stated in Rio Hondo, the employer may ultimately refuse to negotiate following clarification. It may also avoid
H041407.DOCX