state of california decision of the public employment relations board ...

statements and misrepresentations during negotiations.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case,
including CSEA's original and amended unfair practice charge, the
Board agent's warning and dismissal letters, CSEA's appeal and
the District's response thereto.
The Board finds the warning and
dismissal letters to be free of prejudicial error and adopts them
as the decision of the Board itself in accordance with the
following discussion.
DISCUSSION
CSEA agreed to the elimination of a tax-sheltered annuity
and cash back benefit plan (TSA/cash back plan) as part of the
resolution of its contract negotiations with the District»
CSEA
alleges that it agreed to the elimination of this plan only
because the District represented that the plan would also be
eliminated for the other employees of the District.
CSEA claims
it first learned in January 1996 that the District had not
eliminated the plan for other employees.
CSEA charges that the
District violated its duty to bargain in good faith by making
(a) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals
on employees, to discriminate or threaten to
discriminate against employees, or otherwise
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees because of their exercise of rights
guaranteed by this chapter. For purposes of
this subdivision, "employee" includes an
applicant for employment or reemployment.
(b) Deny to employee organizations rights
guaranteed to them by this chapter.
(c) Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in
good faith with an exclusive representative.