State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration and Transportation) (PERB 1227S)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
PROFESSIONAL 	ENGINEERS 	IN
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT,
Charging 	Party,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENTS
OF 	PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AND
TRANSPORTATION),
Respondent.
)
)
)
) 	Case No. 	SA-CE-750-S
PERB Decision No. 	1227-S
November 	5, 	1997
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
Appearances; 	Dennis F. 	Moss, 	Attorney, 	for Professional
Engineers 	in California Government; 	State of California
(Department 	of 	Personnel Administration) 	by Linda M. 	Nelson,
Labor Relations 	Counsel, 	for State of California 	(Departments 	of
Personnel Administration and Transportation).
Before Caffrey, 	Chairman; 	Johnson and Dyer, 	Members.
DECISION
DYER, 	Member: 	This 	case comes before the Public Employment
Relations Board 	(PERB or Board) 	on appeal by the State of
California 	(Departments 	of 	Personnel 	Administration and
Transportation) 	(State) 	of a PERB administrative 	law judge's
(ALJ) 	proposed decision. 	In the proposed decision, 	the ALJ
determined that 	the 	State violated the 	Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills
Act)1 section 3519(b) 	and 	(c), 	finding that the State's
1The Dills Act 	is 	codified at 	Government 	Code 	section 3512
et 	seq. 	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	all 	statutory references
herein are to the Government Code. 	Section 3519 	states, 	in
pertinent part:
It 	shall 	be unlawful 	for the 	state 	to do any
of 	the 	following:

representatives 	failed 	to 	freely 	exchange 	information with 	the
Professional 	Engineers 	in California Government 	(PECG). 	After
reviewing 	the 	entire 	record, 	the Board reverses 	the proposed
decision 	in part and affirms 	it 	in part, 	for the 	reasons
explained 	below.
(b) 	Deny to employee 	organizations 	rights
guaranteed 	to 	them by 	this 	chapter.
(c) 	Refuse or fail 	to meet and confer in
good 	faith with 	a 	recognized 	employee
organization.
BACKGROUND
PECG 	is 	the 	recognized employee 	organization 	for State
Bargaining Unit 9 	- 	Engineers. 	In early 1995, 	the Department of
Transportation 	(Caltrans) 	managers 	informed PECG of budget 	cuts
and the potential 	impact 	on Unit 	9 	employees. 	From January 	to
April 	1995, 	PECG and the 	State met 	and conferred several 	times
regarding the 	effects 	of 	layoff. 	During that process, 	PECG made
a 	series 	of 	information requests 	of 	Caltrans, 	asserting that 	the
information was 	relevant 	and necessary 	for 	PECG 	to 	fulfill 	its
responsibilities under the Dills Act.
Various 	types 	of 	oral 	and written 	communications 	occurred
between 	the parties 	and Caltrans provided 	some 	of 	the 	requested
information. 	However, 	PECG filed the 	instant unfair practice
charge on May 8, 	1995, 	alleging that Caltrans' 	responses to
eleven 	information requests 	failed 	to 	satisfy Dills Act
requirements.
22

After a hearing, 	the ALJ 	concluded 	that 	Caltrans 	had
violated 	the 	Dills 	Act 	with 	respect 	to 	seven 	of 	the 	eleven
information 	requests. 	He 	dismissed allegations 	relating 	to 	the
remaining 	four 	information 	requests.
EXCEPTIONS 	AND 	RESPONSE
The 	State 	excepts 	to 	the 	ALJ's 	proposed decision 	on 	numerous
grounds 	and 	offers 	various 	arguments 	in 	support 	of 	its 	position
that 	it 	committed no unfair practices. 	The 	State's 	arguments
fall 	into 	several 	groups, 	which may be 	briefly 	summarized as
follows:
(1) 	Some 	of 	the 	requested 	information did not 	exist 	at 	the
time 	of 	the 	request.
(2) 	Caltrans 	exercised 	reasonable 	diligence 	and 	complied 	to
the best 	of 	its 	ability.
(3) 	Some 	of 	the 	information was 	not 	in 	its possession, 	and
it 	had no 	obligation 	to 	contact 	other 	agencies 	to
obtain 	the 	requested 	information.
(4) 	Some 	of 	the 	information was 	not 	readily available 	in
the 	form sought 	by 	PECG, 	and 	it 	would have 	been unduly
burdensome 	to 	compile 	it.
(5) 	The Dills Act 	does 	not 	require 	employers 	to provide 	the
thought processes 	of 	its 	directors, 	since mental
impressions 	do 	not 	constitute 	"information".
(6) 	Certain 	requests 	were vague 	and 	overly broad, 	and 	PECG
failed 	to provide 	any 	specifics 	or 	limitations 	that
would 	assist 	in 	the 	discovery 	of 	relevant 	information.
33

PECG 	responded 	to 	the 	exceptions by urging 	the 	Board 	to
affirm 	the 	proposed 	decision.
DISCUSSION
First 	we 	provide an overview of 	the 	general 	principles 	we
apply 	in resolving 	information request 	cases, 	although each 	case
turns 	on 	the particular 	facts 	involved. 	(Chula Vista 	City School
District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	834 	(Chula Vista) 	at pp. 	52-53,
citing Detroit Edison Co. 	v. 	NLRB 	(1979) 	440 U.S. 	301 	[100 LRRM
2728] .) 	We 	then analyze each of 	the 	information requests 	in this
case 	by 	applying principles 	that 	are 	drawn 	from established
precedent.
General 	Principles
The Dills Act 	imposes 	a duty on parties 	to meet 	and 	confer
in good 	faith 	on matters 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation.
Stemming 	from the 	duty to meet 	and 	confer 	in good 	faith 	is 	the
requirement 	that 	employers 	provide 	the 	exclusive 	representative
of 	its employees, 	upon request, 	with information that 	is
necessary and 	relevant 	to 	the union's 	representational
obligations. 	(Stockton Unified School District 	(1980) 	PERB
Decision No. 	143 	(Stockton); 	Chula Vista.)2 In other words,
while 	an 	exclusive 	representative performs 	a number 	of 	functions
for the benefit 	of 	its membership, 	its right to obtain
2See also, 	NLRB v. 	Item Co. 	(1955) 	220 	F.2d 956 	[35 LRRM
2709] 	(information must be 	sought 	for a purpose 	that 	is directly
related 	to 	the union's 	function as 	a bargaining 	representative
and must 	appear 	reasonably necessary 	for 	the performance 	of 	this
function); 	NLRB v. 	Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. 	(1954)
210 	F.2d 	134 	[33 	LRRM 2435].
44

information 	from an 	employer while 	performing 	those 	functions 	is
not 	unlimited.3 An 	exclusive 	representative 	only has 	the 	right
to 	obtain 	information necessary and 	relevant 	to 	its
representational 	obligations under the Dills Act.
Information request 	charges will 	be analyzed as 	follows:
Failure 	to 	respond 	to a 	request 	is 	a violation because 	the
employer 	cannot 	simply refuse 	to provide 	information or 	ignore 	a
request 	(Chula Vista at p. 	53).
Information 	requested 	that 	pertains 	immediately 	to 	a
mandatory 	subject 	of bargaining,4 is 	presumptively 	relevant.5
3The 	same basic 	fact 	pattern may provide parties 	with
concurrent, 	but distinct, 	rights, 	duties and remedies that derive
from other sources, 	such as 	contract, 	the 	state or federal
constitution, 	or other statutes 	(e.g., 	the Public Records Act or
civil 	rights statutes). 	It 	is a fundamental 	rule that parties
must 	seek 	relief 	in 	the 	appropriate 	forum.
4See Dills Act 	section 3516, 	which limits 	the 	scope 	of
representation to 	"wages, 	hours and other terms 	and conditions 	of
employment." 	These 	topics are mandatory subjects 	of bargaining.
5We 	also note 	that 	an employer's 	decision to 	lay 	off
employees because 	there 	is 	insufficient work or 	funds 	to 	support
the work 	force 	is 	a matter of 	fundamental 	managerial 	prerogative
and outside 	the 	scope 	of bargaining. 	(Newman-Crows 	Landing
Unified School District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	223 	(Newman-
Crows Landing); 	State of California 	(Department of Personnel
Administration) 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	648-S 	(Personnel
Administration).) 	The 	employer has 	no obligation to provide 	the
union with 	information relating 	to 	economic 	justifications 	for
nonnegotiable decisions. 	(UOP Inc. 	272 NLRB 999 	[1117 LRRM 1429]
(UOP).)
Hence, 	in the case at bar, 	it 	should be noted that 	Caltrans'
management 	decision to lay off 	employees 	is 	outside 	the 	scope 	of
representation and nonnegotiable, 	although the 	effects 	of 	the
layoff decision are negotiable. 	(Newman-Crows 	Landing; 	Personnel
Administration).) 	Furthermore, 	an employer must negotiate 	the
"reasonably foreseeable effects" 	of 	a nonnegotiable decision, 	but
there 	is 	no 	obligation to meet 	and 	confer 	over 	those 	effects
which are speculative or indirect. 	(See, 	e.g., 	Lake Elsinore
55

The burden then shifts 	to 	the 	employer to 	either provide 	the
information within a 	reasonable 	time 	of 	the 	request 	or overcome
the presumption of 	relevance.6 (Stockton; 	Los Angeles Unified
School District 	(1994) 	PERB Decision No. 	1061 	(Los Angeles); 	and
Trustees 	of 	the California State University 	(1987) 	PERB Decision
No. 	613-H.)
School District 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	646 at p. 	16; 	and
Mt. 	Diablo Unified School District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	373.)
If 	the 	requested 	information does 	not 	pertain 	immediately 	to
a mandatory subject 	of bargaining, 	there 	is 	no presumption of
relevance, 	and 	the 	requestor must 	show that 	the 	requested
information 	is 	relevant 	and necessary 	to 	its 	representational
responsibilities. 	(Los Angeles: 	Reiss Viking 	(1993) 	312 NLRB 622
[145 LRRM 1190]; 	Duquesne Light Co. 	(1992) 	306 NLRB 1042
[140 	LRRM 1079].) 	In the absence of 	such a showing, 	no violation
will 	be 	found and 	the 	allegation 	is 	dismissed.
6The 	employer may 	challenge 	relevancy by 	informing 	the
requestor or asking 	for clarification of 	the request, 	since, 	as
noted above, 	failure 	to respond constitutes a violation. 	(Chula
Vista.) 	Even if 	the employer fails 	to challenge relevance, 	the
Board may assess 	relevance 	in 	its 	review because 	PERB, 	like 	the
courts, 	may test 	for relevancy during analysis 	of 	a particular
case, 	regardless 	of whether the 	employer disputed relevancy
earlier. 	(Modesto City Schools 	and High School 	District 	(1985)
PERB Decision No. 	479, 	at fn. 	2, 	p. 	5.)
We 	decline 	to hold that 	an employer waives 	its 	right 	to
dispute 	relevance 	by 	failing 	to 	do 	so 	immediately 	following 	a
request. 	In this 	case, 	there were numerous oral 	and written
communications 	between the parties 	following Caltrans'
announcement 	of 	its 	decision to lay off 	certain employees. 	It
serves 	no purpose 	to penalize 	the 	employer 	for failing 	to
challenge 	relevance at 	that 	time 	in lieu of 	engaging 	in
communication with 	the 	requestor.
6

The 	employer may defend 	its 	failure 	to provide 	information
by justifiable 	circumstances. 	Examples 	include 	the 	following:
An 	employer need not 	comply with an 	information 	request 	that
is unduly burdensome 	or where 	the 	requested 	information does 	not
exist. 	(Stockton; 	Chula Vista.) 	The employer need only comply
with portions 	of 	the 	request 	that 	clearly ask 	for necessary and
relevant 	information. 	(Azabu USA 	(Kona) 	Co. 	(1990) 	298 NLRB 702
[134 	LRRM 1245] 	(Azabu).) 	Although an employer cannot
unreasonably delay providing 	relevant 	information 	(Chula Vista 	at
p. 	51), 	the employer need not 	furnish information in a form more
organized than its own records 	(NLRB v. 	Tex-Tan. 	Inc. 	(1963) 	318
F.2d 472 	[53 	LRRM 2298] 	(Tex-Tan. 	Inc.).) 	If the employer
partially 	complies 	and the union fails 	to 	communicate 	its
dissatisfaction, 	or to reassert or clarify its 	request, 	no
violation will 	be 	found. 	(Oakland Unified School 	District 	(1983)
PERB Decision No. 	367 	(Oakland USD).)
This 	case 	requires 	a determination of whether the 	requested
information 	is 	necessary and 	relevant 	to 	the 	exclusive
representative's Dills Act 	representational 	duties. 	Since
information 	request 	cases 	turn on 	the particular 	facts 	involved
(Chula Vista), 	we will analyze 	the various requests 	separately by
applying 	the 	rules 	presented above.
Request No. 	I7
1. 	The method of 	calculation of 	Personnel
Year Equivalents 	(PYEs) 	allocation provided
7Please note 	that 	the 	requests 	are 	set 	forth as 	articulated
by 	the ALJ.
77

to 	[Caltrans] 	districts 	(and any other
organizational 	units).
Caltrans 	responded to this 	request, 	stating 	that 	its 	staff
reported 	that 	no documents 	existed 	to 	reflect 	Personnel 	Year
Equivalents 	methodology.
PECG 	sought 	this 	information 	to ascertain 	the 	impact 	of 	the
pending 	layoff 	on unit members 	and 	to 	formulate 	its 	negotiation
strategy. 	The 	information requested 	is 	entitled to 	the
presumption of 	relevance 	since 	it 	pertains 	immediately 	to 	the
subjects 	of wages 	and hours, 	which are mandatory subjects 	of
bargaining.8
Caltrans' 	main defense 	is 	its 	assertion that 	the 	information
requested did not 	exist. 	The ALJ made a 	credibility
determination on 	this matter and we 	decline 	to 	disturb 	that
determination since 	it 	is 	a well-established principle 	of 	PERB
caselaw that 	the 	Board grants 	great 	deference 	to 	the ALJ's
credibility determinations. 	This principle 	recognizes 	that 	the
ALJ, 	who conducts 	the hearing and observes witnesses' 	testimony,
is 	in a better position to make 	accurate 	credibility
determinations 	than the Board which, 	in an appellate 	capacity,
has 	only the benefit 	of 	the 	transcripts and record. 	(Temple City
Unified School District 	(1990) 	PERB Decision No. 	841.) 	Absent
evidence 	in 	the 	record to 	support 	overturning 	the ALJ's
credibility determinations, 	the Board defers 	to the ALJ's
8See also, 	Newman-Crows 	Landing 	(impacts 	of 	layoff are
negotiable).
8

findings. 	(Whisman Elementary School District 	(1991) 	PERB
Decision No. 	868.)
Here, 	the ALJ observed that 	PYE 	reductions 	could not 	have
spontaneously appeared on Caltrans' 	documents, 	reasoning that
some methodology must 	have been used. 	Finding 	insufficient
evidence 	to overturn that determination, 	we defer to 	the ALJ's
conclusion and hold 	that 	a violation 	occurred.
Request No. 	2
2. 	Regarding 	the 	$163 	million 	for rail
projects, 	the magnitude of 	the engineering
effort 	which would be 	involved, 	and who will
do 	that work.
A Caltrans 	witness 	testified 	that 	the 	employer 	responded 	to
this 	request 	by 	inquiring 	internally whether any 	relevant
documents 	existed, 	then 	informed PECG that 	none 	existed.
PECG apparently sought 	this 	information to 	find out more
about 	Caltrans' 	plan to retire 	a 	rail 	bond debt by using 	funds
that 	could otherwise be used 	to 	fund 	the positions 	of 	PECG
members. 	It was assumed that 	Caltrans was prepared to contract
out work 	that 	could otherwise be performed by 	PECG members; 	PECG
wanted 	to 	know who would 	do 	the 	work 	instead.
Portions 	of 	this 	request 	are 	entitled to 	the presumption of
relevance. 	This 	request 	is 	entitled to the presumption of
relevance 	only to 	the 	extent 	that 	it 	seeks 	information regarding
unit 	9 members, 	since only those portions of the request are
relevant 	and necessary to 	PECG's 	negotiating 	the 	impacts 	of
layoff 	on Unit 	9 	employees, 	a mandatory subject 	of bargaining.
(Newman-Crows 	Landing.)
9

In defense 	of 	its 	failure 	to 	comply with the 	relevant
portions 	of 	the 	request, 	a Caltrans witness 	testified that 	the
employer 	did not 	provide 	the 	requested 	information 	for 	several
reasons. 	First, 	some of 	the 	information did not 	exist at 	the
time of 	the request. 	Second, 	some 	of 	the 	information was 	in the
possession of 	local 	agencies 	rather than the State. 	Third, 	in
order 	to 	comply with 	this 	request, 	Caltrans 	would have had to
gather and compile 	it 	from local 	agencies, 	and it argues 	that 	it
has no obligation to do so.
We 	find these defenses persuasive. 	Regarding the 	first 	two
defenses, 	a violation will 	not be 	found where 	there 	is no
convincing 	evidence 	that 	the 	requested 	information 	existed at 	the
time 	of 	the 	request, 	since an employer cannot be 	forced to 	turn
over what 	it 	did not possess 	or what 	did not 	exist 	at 	the 	time 	of
the 	request. 	(See Chula Vista.) 	The 	third defense 	is also
valid, 	since an employer need not 	furnish 	information 	in a more
organized 	form than 	that 	in which 	it 	keeps 	in 	its 	own records.
(Tex-Tan. 	Inc.) 	We hold that 	these defenses 	excuse 	Caltrans 	from
its 	obligation 	to provide 	this 	information and we 	find no
violation.
Request No. 	3
3. 	The historical pattern of additional
federal 	money being made 	available 	to 	states
which are plan ready, 	Caltrans' 	historical
share of 	such money, 	whether it 	can be
reasonably 	anticipated 	that 	such money will
be available 	in the upcoming 	fiscal year, 	and
whether Caltrans will 	be 	in a position 	to
take advantage 	of 	that 	opportunity.
10

There 	is 	evidence that 	Caltrans 	responded to this 	request by-
informing 	PECG 	that 	it 	exercised reasonable 	diligence 	in 	its
attempt 	to comply, 	but 	that 	its 	efforts 	to obtain the requested
information were 	fruitless. 	Caltrans 	explained 	that 	the
information either did not 	exist at 	the 	time of 	the 	request, 	or
that 	to 	compile 	it would be unduly burdensome. 	There 	is 	no
evidence 	that 	PECG, 	upon receiving this 	response, 	attempted to
clarify 	its 	request 	in a way 	that 	would make 	compliance 	less
burdensome.
This 	request 	does 	not pertain 	immediately to any of 	the
mandatory subjects of bargaining. 	In fact, 	it appears 	to seek
information 	regarding 	the 	financial 	basis 	for 	Caltrans'
nonnegotiable decision to 	lay off 	employees. 	As 	stated above,
Caltrans' 	decision to lay off 	employees because 	there 	is
insufficient work or 	funds 	to 	support 	the work 	force 	is 	a matter
of 	fundamental managerial 	prerogative and outside 	the 	scope 	of
bargaining. 	(Newman-Crows 	Landing: 	Personnel Administration.)
Hence, 	Caltrans has 	no obligation to provide the union with
information 	relating 	to 	economic 	justifications 	for 	nonnegotiable
decisions. 	(UOP.)
Although PECG 	is 	entitled to 	information 	it 	needs 	to
negotiate 	the 	effects of 	layoff, 	we 	fail 	to see how this 	request
would produce 	that 	type 	of 	information. 	In addition to 	seeking
economic 	justification for the 	layoffs, 	it 	seeks 	information
about 	speculative 	or 	indirect 	effects 	of 	layoff. 	Under the
11

- -
authorities 	cited above, 	that 	type of 	request 	is not 	entitled to
the presumption of 	relevance.9
In such a 	case, 	PECG has 	the burden of 	showing that 	the
request 	is 	relevant. 	We 	see no persuasive evidence 	that 	this
information was 	necessary and 	relevant 	to 	PECG's 	representational
duties. 	PECG has not met 	its burden, 	and we 	find no violation.
Request No. 	4
4. 	An explanation of why a Caltrans Director
letter 	states 	that 	its 	budget 	would be
"significantly smaller" 	in 1995/96, 	while
both 	the 	Governor's 	Budget 	and a 	departmental
Fact 	Sheet, 	show an increase 	in funding of
$200 million.10
The ALJ 	found 	that 	Caltrans 	did not 	respond 	to 	this 	request.
Under 	the authorities 	cited above, 	since we do not 	find evidence
9See footnote 6, 	supra.
10This 	request 	is 	not 	entitled to the presumption of
relevance 	since 	it 	does 	not pertain 	immediately to any of 	the
topics listed in Dills Act section 3516 	(i.e., 	wages, 	hours and
terms and conditions of employment). 	In fact, 	the subject of
this 	request more 	closely 	resembles 	the 	subjects 	expressly
excluded 	from the 	scope 	of 	representation 	in Dills Act 	section
3516, 	which provides in part that:
. 	. 	. 	the scope of representation shall not
include 	consideration of 	the merits,
necessity, 	or organization of any service 	or
activity provided by 	law or 	executive 	order.
In view of 	the 	fact 	that 	Caltrans 	had no 	obligation 	to provide
the 	requested 	information, 	merely the 	obligation to 	respond to
the 	request, 	we 	expressly limit 	the 	remedy 	for this violation to
ordering Caltrans 	to make some response 	(upon request by PECG).
12

in the 	record sufficient 	to disturb 	the ALJ's 	credibility-
determination, 	we defer to 	it and 	find a violation.11
Request No. 	5
5. 	Any workload measures 	used 	in determining
staffing needs 	and allocations 	for 	the
current and budget years, 	including any
changes 	in such measures 	and/or any
efficiencies 	which would affect 	staffing
needs.
This 	request 	seeks 	to obtain 	information regarding any
modifications 	Caltrans 	had 	implemented 	in 	its 	workload 	standards.
Caltrans 	attempted 	to 	find out 	if 	there 	had been any 	such
modifications 	from a unit 	known as 	PYPSCAN which maintained a
data base 	record of 	historical 	work project 	efforts. 	Unable 	to
locate such information, 	Caltrans 	informed PECG. 	Under
Chula Vista. 	Caltrans 	has 	no obligation 	to provide 	information
which does not 	exist. 	Accordingly, 	we 	find no violation.
Request No. 	6
6. 	Engineering 	or 	related work 	(surveying,
etc.) 	reimbursed by local 	agencies during 	the
current year; 	what 	had been planned 	for
reimbursed work during the budget year; 	and
the 	current allocation, 	limitations and
rationale 	for such work, 	also, 	if respondent
has 	turned down such work, 	and/or is 	not
actively 	soliciting 	such work 	as 	an
alternative to potential 	layoffs, 	the
rationale 	for these decisions.
11We note 	that 	Caltrans 	offered an 	explanation 	during 	the
hearing as part of 	its defense. 	However, 	it 	is well 	settled that
an 	employer 	cannot 	unreasonably 	delay providing 	requested
information. 	(Chula Vista at p. 	51.) 	To offer an explanation
long after the 	request was made, 	as 	a defense 	to an unfair 	labor
practice 	charge, 	is 	tantamount 	to a refusal 	to respond and we
would 	find a violation on 	that 	basis 	regardless 	of 	the ALJ's
credibility 	determination.
13

Caltrans 	responded 	to 	PECG 	that 	it 	had made 	a 	reasonable
effort 	to 	obtain 	the 	requested 	information by 	contacting managers
and local 	agencies, 	but 	found nothing.
To 	the 	extent 	that 	this 	request 	seeks 	"the 	rationale 	for
these 	decisions," 	Caltrans 	had no obligation to 	satisfy the
request.12 The 	remainder of 	the 	request 	is 	entitled 	to a
presumption of 	relevance, 	because 	it pertains 	immediately to
mandatory 	subjects 	of bargaining 	(hours 	and availability of 	work)
and 	to negotiating 	the 	impacts 	of 	layoff.
Various defenses apply, 	however. 	Request No. 	6 contains
eight 	separate, 	broad inquiries with which compliance 	is 	likely
to be burdensome. 	Although we 	emphasize 	that 	an employer may not
simply refuse 	to respond 	if 	compliance would be burdensome, 	it
need only 	comply 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	the 	request 	clearly asks 	for
necessary and relevant 	information. 	(Azabu; 	Stockton.) 	This
request, 	as phrased, 	is overly burdensome because 	it encompasses
a broad 	range 	of 	activities 	and 	seeks 	information 	far beyond what
is 	necessary and relevant 	for 	PECG 	to perform its
representational 	functions. 	The 	requester must 	word 	information
requests 	as 	specifically as possible,13 since 	the 	right 	to
information 	cannot 	be 	turned 	into 	a broad-ranging 	fishing
expedition.
12See footnote 10, 	supra.
13For example, 	this 	request 	could have been narrowed by
listing 	specific 	activities 	typically performed by 	the 	affected
job 	classifications 	PECG represents, 	rather than using 	the broad
phrase 	"engineering 	or 	related work."
14

Furthermore, 	portions 	of 	this 	request 	target 	information not
yet 	in existence, 	and as 	stated above, 	a violation cannot be
found when that 	is 	the case. 	(Chula Vista.) 	We 	find that
Caltrans' 	efforts 	to respond satisfied its 	legal 	obligation, 	and
we 	find no violation.
Request No. 	7
7. 	Any requests, 	suggestions 	or
recommendations 	from Caltrans 	or any 	local
agency 	for Caltrans 	or State 	government 	to
perform 	engineering 	or 	related 	services
(including but 	not 	limited 	to 	surveying and
landscaping architecture) 	on any state
highway 	or 	other 	transportation project 	since
January 1, 	1993. 	For purposes of this
request, 	local agency refers 	to any
governmental unit 	other than the 	state 	or
federal 	government.
Caltrans made 	a 	reasonable 	effort 	to 	obtain 	this 	requested
information by 	contacting 	its 	finance 	division 	for any written
requests 	from local 	agencies 	for reimbursed work. 	Caltrans 	found
nothing and notified PECG. 	Therefore, 	under Chula Vista, 	we 	find
no violation.
Request No. 	8
8. 	Any document 	from any 	source 	dated on or
after July 1, 	1994, which requests, proposes,
recommends 	or analyzes 	the possibility of
additional 	future 	funding 	for 	transportation
in California 	in addition 	to 	the 	funding
anticipated in the Governor's budget, 	not
including any measure 	on 	the November 	1994
ballot.
A Caltrans 	witness 	testified 	that 	he 	asked 	the 	department's
budget 	program staff 	whether 	there were 	any 	such documents. 	They
advised him that 	they did not understand the 	request, 	but 	to 	the
extent 	that 	they did understand 	it, 	there were 	no 	such documents.
15

Caltrans 	forwarded the budget program's queries 	to 	PECG, 	asking
for 	further 	clarification. 	There was 	no evidence 	that 	PECG ever
did so.
Under Oakland USD, 	no violation will 	be 	found 	if 	the
employer partially 	complies 	and 	the union 	fails 	to 	reassert 	or
clarify its 	request. 	Therefore, 	we 	find no violation.
Request No. 	9
9. 	Detailed 	information 	regarding 	the
Caltrans 	staffing plans, 	including chart
showing 	the allocations 	to 	the districts 	and
headquarters units 	with numbers 	of 	authorized
personnel 	years 	for administration, 	capital
outlay, etc.
The 	State 	complied with 	this 	request 	by providing 	its
current 	staffing plans 	to 	PECG and updating 	them when necessary.
No 	exceptions 	address 	this 	request.
Request No. 	10
10. 	Copies of the request(s) 	or response(s)
from the districts 	and headquarters'
functional 	units 	regarding 	staffing plans,
personnel years, 	etc.
Caltrans 	responded to this 	request 	as 	part 	of 	its 	response
to Request No. 	9.
The distinction between this 	request and Request No. 	9 	is
that 	in this 	request, 	PECG sought 	the rationale Caltrans used in
making 	its 	internal 	staffing allocation decisions, 	based on the
requests 	received 	internally. 	The distinction 	is 	significant,
since 	the way 	in which Caltrans 	used 	those 	requests 	to 	develop
staffing plans and personnel year figures, 	etc. 	is 	excluded from
the 	scope 	of bargaining pursuant 	to Dills Act 	section 3516. 	The
16

result 	is 	that 	this 	request 	is not 	entitled to a presumption of
relevance.
PECG has 	not met 	its 	burden of 	showing that 	the 	requested
information 	is 	necessary and 	relevant 	to 	negotiating 	the 	impacts
of 	layoff 	or 	any 	other 	representational 	function protected by 	the
Dills Act. 	Accordingly, 	we 	find no violation for this 	request.
Request No. 	11
11. 	A listing of all Unit 	9 vacancies 	filled
in any state department 	or agency, 	on a
monthly basis, 	beginning on January 10, 	1995,
including vacancies 	filled by hiring,
transfers, 	promotions, 	or any other method.
Caltrans argues 	in its 	exceptions 	that 	it 	complied with 	the
request, 	apparently after the PERB hearing, 	but 	it offers no
evidence 	that 	it 	responded earlier. 	As noted above, 	an employer
cannot 	unreasonably 	delay providing 	relevant 	information
(Chula Vista at p. 	51), 	and Caltrans has offered no explanation
for the delay. 	Accordingly, 	we 	find a violation.
In summary, 	the Board hereby dismisses 	the 	charge and
complaint with regard to request No. 	2, 	3, 	5, 	6, 	7, 	8, 	9 and 10.
The 	Board 	finds 	that 	the 	State 	committed a violation 	of 	Dills Act
section 3519(b) 	and 	(c) 	with respect to request No. 	1, 	4 and 11.
ORDER
Based on the 	foregoing findings 	of act, 	conclusions 	of 	law
and the entire 	record in this 	case, 	it 	is 	found that 	the State 	of
California 	(Departments 	of 	Personnel 	Administration and
Transportation) 	(State) 	violated the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills
Act), 	Government Code section 3519(b) 	and 	(c).
17

Pursuant to Dills Act section 3514.5(c), 	it is hereby
ORDERED that the state employer, 	its administrators, 	and
representatives 	shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Denying 	to 	the 	Professional 	Engineers 	in
California Government 	(PECG) 	rights 	guaranteed 	to 	them by 	the
Dills Act.
2. 	Refusing 	or 	failing 	to meet 	and confer 	in good
faith with 	PECG.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED 	TO
EFFECTUATE THE 	POLICIES OF THE DILLS ACT:
1. 	Provide to PECG, 	upon request, 	the method of
calculation 	of 	personnel 	year 	equivalents 	allocation provided 	to
the State 	(Department 	of 	Transportation) 	districts 	(and any other
organizational 	units) 	during 	the 	relevant 	time period.
2. 	Provide to PECG, 	upon request, 	some response 	to
Request No. 	4.
3. 	Provide to PECG, 	upon request, 	specified listings
of all 	State Bargaining Unit 	9 	(Unit 	9) 	vacancies 	filled 	in any
state department 	or agency, 	on a monthly basis, 	beginning on
January 10, 	1995, 	including vacancies 	filled by hiring,
transfers, 	promotions, 	or any other method.
3. 	Within thirty-five 	(35) 	days 	following the date
this Decision is no longer subject 	to reconsideration, 	post 	at
all 	work 	locations where notices 	to employees 	are 	customarily
placed, 	copies 	of 	the Notice attached as an Appendix hereto,
signed by an authorized agent 	of 	the 	employer. 	Such posting
18

shall 	be maintained 	for a period of 	thirty 	(30) 	consecutive
workdays. 	Reasonable steps 	shall 	be 	taken to 	insure 	that 	this
Notice 	is not 	reduced in size, 	defaced, 	altered or covered by any
material.
4. 	Written notification of 	the actions 	taken to
comply with 	this 	Order 	shall 	be made 	to 	the 	Sacramento Regional
Director 	of 	the 	Public 	Employment 	Relations 	Board 	in accordance
with 	the 	director's 	instructions.
Member Johnson 	joined 	in 	this 	Decision.
Chairman Caffrey's 	concurrence 	and dissent 	begins 	on page 	20.
19

CAFFREY, 	Chairman, 	concurring and dissenting: 	I concur in
the 	finding 	that 	the 	State 	of 	California 	(Departments 	of
Personnel 	Administration 	and 	Transportation 	(Caltrans 	or 	State)
violated the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act) 	section 3519(b) 	and
(c) 	by failing 	to provide 	to the 	Professional 	Engineers 	in
California Government 	(PECG) 	information 	relevant 	and necessary
to 	PECG's 	representational 	responsibilities. 	I dissent with
regard to several 	of 	the 	specific 	findings 	of 	the majority as
discussed below. 	I 	also write 	separately to 	fully describe 	the
circumstances 	surrounding this 	case, 	and to distance myself 	from
portions 	of 	the majority analysis.
BACKGROUND
On January 10, 	1995, 	Dave Brubaker 	(Brubaker), 	Chief of
Caltrans' 	Office of Labor Relations, 	sent Bruce Blanning
(Blanning), 	PECG's Executive Assistant, 	a letter titled
"Reduction in Force, 	Fiscal 	Year 1995-1996." 	The 	letter notified
PECG 	that 	the 	Governor's 	proposed budget 	established a 	Caltrans
staffing 	level 	that 	was 	1,226 	Personnel 	Year Equivalents 	(PYE)
less 	than the existing level. 	As a result, 	Caltrans planned
layoffs 	in unknown classifications. 	Caltrans 	offered to discuss
impacts 	and promised to share 	information as 	it became available.
The January 10, 	1995, 	letter included several attachments.
One attachment, 	the 	"1995-1996 Governor's Budget 	Fact Sheet,"
states 	that 	the budget provides 	a 	1,200 	PYE 	reduction as part 	of
the 	ongoing 	commitment 	to 	reduce 	costs 	and balance 	staff 	to a
declining workload. 	Another attachment, 	a January 10, 	1995, 	memo
20

to all 	Caltrans 	employees, 	explained that 	the 	1989-1994 	hiring of
2,000 	additional 	staff 	left 	Caltrans 	over-staffed when
anticipated gas 	tax and bond measure 	revenues 	failed 	to 	fully
materialize.
The parties met on January 20, 	1995, 	to discuss 	issues
related to the layoff. 	On January 23, 	1995, 	Blanning wrote
Brubaker a 	letter 	summarizing 	information 	requests 	which 	PECG
made at 	the January 20, 	1995, 	meeting. 	The letter included the
following 	requests:1
1. 	The 	PYE allocations provided to 	the Districts
(and any other organizational units), 	their
method of 	calculation, 	and any 	instructions
on how to develop appropriate 	responses, 	such
as 	staffing plans.
2. 	Whether 	the 	$77 million 	for rail 	bond debt
service, 	the $163 million to fund rail
projects, 	or other Caltrans 	funds are being
used 	for purposes 	which 	the voter 	rejected
rail 	bonds would 	fund. 	Regarding 	the 	$163
million for rail projects, 	the magnitude of
the 	engineering 	effort 	involved and who will
do 	the work.
3. 	The 	current 	and anticipated status 	of 	"shelf"
work. 	Also, 	the historical pattern of
additional 	federal 	monies 	being made
available to plan ready states, 	Caltrans
historical 	share of 	such money, 	whether such
money will 	be 	available 	in 	the upcoming
fiscal year, 	and whether Caltrans will be 	in
the position to 	take advantage 	of 	that
opportunity.
4. 	Why the Director's 	January 	10 	letter states
that 	"Caltrans 	FY 	1995/96 	budget 	is
xIn this discussion of the 	facts, 	all 	of PECG's 	requests and
Caltrans' 	responses 	are 	summarized 	in corresponding numerical
order. 	The numbers 	assigned to 	the 	summaries vary 	from the
numbers 	in PECG's 	original 	letters because many of 	the 	original
requests 	are not at 	issue 	in this 	case.
21

significantly 	smaller 	than 	the 	current 	fiscal
year" 	and 	the 	"Transportation 	Funding
Shortfall 	Summary" 	you provided 	identifies
numerous 	elements 	of a 	"funding shortfall,"
whereas 	the Governor's 	Budget 	and the 	Fact
Sheet 	show a 	$200 million 	increase 	in
Caltrans 	funding.
5. 	Any workload measures 	used 	in determining
staffing needs 	and allocations 	for 	current
and budget years. 	This 	should 	include 	any
changes 	in 	such measures 	and/or any
efficiencies 	which would affect 	staffing
needs.
6. 	Engineering or related work 	(surveying, 	etc.)
reimbursed by 	local 	agencies 	during 	the
current 	year; 	reimbursed work planned during
the budget year; 	and the 	current allocation,
limitations 	and rationale 	for such work. 	If
the Department 	has 	turned down 	such work
and/or 	is 	not 	actively soliciting 	such work
as 	an alternative 	to potential 	layoffs,
please provide 	relevant 	information and
rationale.
Between January 23 	and February 10, 	1995, 	Blanning and
Brubaker discussed 	the 	information 	requests. 	Caltrans 	indicated
that 	it was 	working 	to gather the 	requested 	information. 	At 	no
time 	did 	Caltrans 	refuse 	to provide 	the 	requested 	information.
On February 10, 	1995, 	Blanning wrote another letter to
Brubaker 	reiterating 	the 	requests 	contained 	in 	the 	January 23,
1995, 	letter. 	Blanning requested additional 	information under
the 	California 	Public Records Act. 	The 	letter contained the
following 	clarifications 	and additions:
3. 	Please also 	include 	the anticipated amount 	of
federal 	money available 	to 	California and 	the
anticipated date 	of 	availability.
6. 	For 	"reimbursed" 	work, 	please 	indicate the
source 	of 	local 	agency 	funding 	(local 	sales
tax/measure work, 	federal 	funding, 	state
funding, etc.); specific agencies; specific
22

identification 	of 	the projects 	and the nature
of 	such work; 	whether Caltrans made any
commitment 	to 	reimburse 	the 	local 	agency 	for
such funding in the 	future; 	and the 	cost and
PYEs 	to perform such work.
7. 	Any request, 	suggestion, 	or recommendation
from Caltrans 	or any 	local 	agency 	for
Caltrans 	or state 	government 	to perform
engineering 	or 	related 	services 	(including
but 	not 	limited 	to 	surveying 	and 	landscape
architecture) 	on any state highway or other
transportation project 	since January 1, 	1993.
For purposes of these requests, 	local agency
refers 	to 	any governmental 	unit 	other 	than
the 	state 	or federal 	government.
8. 	Any document 	from any source 	dated on 	or
after July 1, 	1994 which requests, 	proposes,
recommends 	or analyzes 	the possibility of
additional 	future 	funding 	for 	transportation
in California 	in addition 	to 	the 	funding
anticipated in the Governor's budget, 	not
including any measure 	on 	the November 	1994
ballot.
On February 16, 	1995, 	Blanning met with Brubaker and
Caltrans Deputy Director of 	Finance Martin Kiff 	(Kiff). 	The
purpose 	of 	this meeting was 	for Kiff 	to provide 	PECG with
information 	regarding 	funding 	and 	financial 	allocations.
On February 28, 	1995, 	Blanning wrote Brubaker a letter
expressing his 	concern that 	Caltrans 	had not provided most 	of 	the
requested information. 	He 	states 	that:
On February 23, 	I wrote 	to you listing
questions 	raised at 	our January 20 meeting 	to
which you promised 	to 	respond. 	Despite
repeated commitments, 	a response was 	not
received 	so 	I made a California 	Public
Records Act 	request 	on February 10, 	expanding
somewhat 	on the questions. 	The 	statutorily-
mandated 	response 	time 	has 	long 	since passed.
Some 	information was 	received 	in
correspondence 	on February 9 	and 15 	and
through Mr. 	Kiff's 	comments on February 16.
23

As Brubaker requested, 	Blanning 	listed PECG's 	understanding 	of
Caltrans' 	responses, 	or lack of responses. 	That list included:
1. 	PYE allocations 	to the Districts have been
provided. 	The method of 	calculation has not.
2. 	PECG believes 	that 	the 	referenced funds 	are
for purposes 	rejected by 	the voters 	in 	the
last 	two elections. 	The magnitude of 	the
engineering effort 	has 	not 	been provided.
3. 	No shelf projects 	are available and there 	is
no plan to develop any. 	Unanticipated
funding would be 	used 	to 	accelerate 	projects
in future years. 	Information regarding
historical 	and 	anticipated 	additional 	federal
funding was 	not provided.
4. 	Although more 	funding 	is 	available 	in 1995-96
than in 1994-95, 	there 	is not enough funding
to 	complete all projects 	as 	scheduled.
5. 	No workload measures 	have been provided.
6. 	Caltrans 	only provided 	information regarding
the 	total 	PYEs 	in the 	current 	fiscal 	year and
proposed PYEs 	for the 	1995-96 	fiscal 	year.
The Department 	will 	lay off 	workers 	rather
than honor 	commitments 	for 	reimbursed work 	or
seek additional 	work. 	"Relevant 	information"
would 	include 	the 	funding 	Caltrans 	lost 	by
failing 	to honor 	its 	commitments 	on
reimbursed work 	and 	failing 	to 	pursue
additional 	work.
7. 	No 	information has been provided.
8. 	No 	information has been provided.
Brubaker responded to Blanning's January 23, 	February 10 	and
February 28, 	1995, 	letters in a March 14, 	1995, 	letter. 	The
response 	included:
1. 	Caltrans 	is 	researching 	to determine whether
written 	instructions 	exist 	for 	calculating
this 	information.
2. 	At 	this point we have 	found no documentation,
but will 	research this 	request 	further.
24

3. 	This question was partially answered by-
Martin Kiff's 	February 16, 	1995 presentation
and 	"1995-1996 	Governor's 	Budget 	Major
Assumptions." 	We will 	further research
anticipated 	federal 	funding.
4. 	This 	issue was 	addressed 	in 	"1995-96 	Budget
Highlights" 	and 	"Responses 	to Questions
Professional 	Engineers 	in California
Government 	Asked During 	Informal 	Meetings 	on
Proposed Reduction 	In Force 	for 	1995."
5. 	We have not been able 	to 	locate any documents
and will 	pursue 	the 	issue 	further.
6. 	Attached 	is a summary 	chart. 	We know of no
decision 	to 	renege 	on any 	commitment 	on
reimbursed 	work.
7. 	We are 	still 	researching 	the availability of
this 	information.
8. 	Our budget 	staff 	does 	not understand 	this
request, 	please 	clarify the 	information you
want.
The 	letter 	ended:
. 	. 	. 	many of these questions are not as you
seem to believe, 	basic stuff. 	They require
considerable time to locate, 	if 	they exist at
all. 	We will 	continue 	to provide you with
available 	information as we 	receive 	it.
On March 23, 	1995, 	Blanning wrote a letter to Gloria Moore
Andrews 	(Andrews), 	Labor Relations Officer for the Department of
Personnel 	Administration, 	requesting 	"more 	detailed 	information
under the Dills Act 	and the California Public Records Act" 	and
sent 	Brubaker a 	copy of 	the 	letter. 	That 	letter requested the
following 	information:
9. 	Since the 	initial 	allocations 	to the
Districts 	and the Headquarters 	units 	on
February 9 	included 	charts 	which 	showed
authorized PYEs 	for Administration, 	Capital
Outlays, 	etc., 	we request the latest
authorizations 	and people 	on board 	to be
25
•

provided 	in that 	format. 	We also 	request
copies 	of 	the 	requests 	and responses 	from the
Districts and Headquarters' 	functional units
regarding staffing plans, 	PYEs, 	etc. 	so we
can distinguish between 	the 	requests 	from the
Districts 	and what 	was 	finally approved.
10. 	To verify if Caltrans 	is 	filling Unit 	9
positions 	without 	offering 	them to 	other
Caltrans 	employees, 	pursuant 	to the Dills and
the California Public Records Act, 	provide
PECG with a listing 	of 	all 	unit 	9 	vacancies
filled in any 	state department 	or agency, 	on
a monthly basis, 	since January 10, 	1995.
On May 12, 	1995, 	Caltrans and PECG agreed to a document
entitled 	"Reduction 	in Force 	Impact Agreements." 	The 	document
covers 	details 	concerning 	the process 	Caltrans 	would 	follow 	in
its 	reorganizing and 	downsizing 	efforts.
DISCUSSION
The Dills Act 	imposes 	a duty to meet 	and 	confer 	in good
faith on matters within 	the 	scope 	of 	representation. 	Dills Act
section 3516 	limits 	the 	scope 	of 	representation to 	"wages, 	hours
and other terms 	and conditions 	of 	employment." 	The 	duty to
furnish 	information 	stems 	from the 	underlying 	statutory duty 	to
bargain.2 (Cowles Communications. 	Inc. 	(1968) 	172 NLRB 1909
[69 	LRRM 1100].) 	The 	employer's 	duty 	to provide 	information
arises 	when the 	exclusive 	representative makes 	a good 	faith
request 	for 	information 	relevant 	and necessary 	to 	its
representational 	duties. 	(NLRB v. 	Boston Herald-Traveler Corp.
2Although 	PECG 	requested 	some 	of 	the 	information under 	the
California 	Public Records Act, 	this 	discussion only addresses
Caltrans' 	duty to provide 	information under the Dills Act.
26

(1954) 	210 F.2d 134 	[33 	LRRM 2435]; 	Westinahouse Elec. 	Supply Co.
v. 	NLRB 	(1952) 	196 	F.2d 1012 	[30 LRRM 2169].)
Although the 	employer need not provide 	information that 	is
not 	relevant 	to 	the union's 	statutory 	representational
responsibilities, 	a 	liberal 	discovery standard 	is used to
determine relevance. 	(AGA Gas 	(1992) 	3 07 NLRB 132 7
[141 LRRM 1046]; 	Chula Vista City School District 	(1990) 	PERB
Decision No. 	834.) 	Information pertaining 	immediately to
mandatory subjects 	of bargaining 	is 	so 	intrinsic 	to 	the 	core 	of
the 	employer-employee 	relationship 	that 	it 	is presumptively
relevant. 	(Stockton Unified School District 	(1980) 	PERB Decision
No. 	143.)3
An 	employer's 	decision 	to 	lay 	off 	employees 	is 	nonnegotiable
as 	a matter of 	fundamental management prerogative. 	The 	state's
fundamental 	management prerogative 	includes 	the 	authority 	to
identify 	the 	specific 	component 	of 	a 	state 	agency 	subject 	to
reduction. 	(State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Forestry and Fire
Protection) 	(1993) 	PERB Decision No. 	999-S.) 	Since there is no
duty for 	the 	employer to bargain on subjects 	outside 	the 	scope 	of
representation, 	there 	is no underlying duty to provide
3For example, 	when the 	exclusive 	representative 	requested
information 	for 	collective 	bargaining 	or 	contract 	administration
purposes, 	PERB has 	found the 	following 	information presumptively
relevant. 	(Stockton Unified School District, 	supra. 	PERB
Decision No. 	143 	(health insurance data); 	Trustees of the
California State University 	(1987) 	PERB Decision No. 	613-H 	(wage
survey data); 	Newark Unified School District 	(1991) 	PERB Decision
No. 	864 	(staffing and enrollment projections); 	and Oakland
Unified School District 	(1983) 	PERB Decision No. 	367 	(seniority
lists).)
27

information on those 	subjects. 	(Goodyear Tire 	& Rubber Co.
(1993) 	312 NLRB 674 	[146 LRRM 1055]; 	BC Industries 	(1992)
307 NLRB 1275 	[140 LRRM 1326].) 	Therefore, 	there is no duty to
provide 	information 	regarding 	the 	decision 	to 	reduce 	staff 	and
designate 	specific 	components 	of 	an agency to be 	the 	subject 	of
reduction.
However, 	the 	effects 	of 	layoff 	on terms and conditions 	of
employment are negotiable. 	Further, 	aspects of 	the procedure an
employer uses 	to lay off 	employees, 	such as 	the designation of
the area of 	layoff, 	are negotiable subjects. 	(State of
California 	(Department of 	Forestry and Fire Protection), 	supra.
PERB Decision No. 	999-S.) 	Therefore, 	the employer is obligated
to provide 	necessary and 	relevant 	information 	concerning 	the
effects 	of 	layoff 	and aspects 	of 	the 	layoff procedure.4
The 	employer must 	provide presumptively 	relevant 	information
or establish 	that 	the 	information 	is plainly irrelevant. 	If 	the
employer rebuts 	the presumption of 	relevance, 	the exclusive
representative must 	show how 	the 	information 	is 	relevant 	to 	its
statutory 	representational 	responsibilities 	like 	collective
bargaining 	or 	collective 	bargaining 	agreement 	administration.
(Los Angeles Unified School District 	(1994) 	PERB Decision
4Note 	that 	the 	State 	and 	PECG have 	engaged 	in negotiations
on subjects 	related to layoff. 	Article 	13 	of 	the parties'
September 1992 	to June 30, 	1995, 	Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) 	covers 	layoff and reemployment. 	Article 13(a) 	indicates
that 	the 	State may lay off 	employees when 	it becomes 	necessary
"because 	of a lack of work or funds, 	or whenever it 	is advisable
in the interest of economy to reduce the number" 	of employees.
Article 13(b), 	"Order of Layoff," 	provides 	that the State will
lay off 	employees pursuant 	to provisions 	of 	the Government 	Code.
28

No. 	1061; 	Trustees of the California State University, 	supra.
PERB Decision No. 	613-H.) 	For information concerning
nonmandatory subjects of bargaining, 	there 	is 	no presumption of
relevancy and 	the 	exclusive 	representative bears 	the burden 	of
establishing that 	the 	information 	is 	relevant 	to 	its 	statutory
representational 	responsibilities. 	(Los Angeles Unified School
District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	1061; 	Reiss Viking 	(1993)
312 NLRB 622 	[145 LRRM 1190]; 	Duquesne Light Co. 	(1992)
306 NLRB 	1042 	[140 	LRRM 1079].)
The 	Board has 	recognized 	several 	employer defenses 	for
failing 	to provide 	relevant 	information. 	An employer need not
comply with an 	information request 	if 	it 	shows 	the 	request 	is
unduly burdensome 	or 	the 	requested 	information does 	not 	exist.
(Stockton Unified School District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	143;
Chula Vista City School District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	834.)
No violation will 	be 	found 	if 	the 	employer 	responds 	and 	the 	union
never 	reasserts 	or clarifies 	its 	request. 	(Oakland Unified
School District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	367.) 	In addition, 	the
employer need not 	furnish 	the 	information 	in a more 	organized
form than its own records. 	(NLRB v. 	Tex-Tan. 	Inc. 	(1963)
318 	F.2d 472 	[53 	LRRM 2298]; 	Los Rios Community College District
(1988) 	PERB Decision No. 	670.) 	Since 	information request 	cases
turn on the particular 	facts 	involved, 	each request 	is 	analyzed
separately. 	(Chula Vista, 	supra.)
29

Having stated the relevant precedent, 	I now apply it 	to the
specific 	information 	requests 	made by 	PECG.5
Request No. 	1
The method of 	calculation of 	Personnel 	Year Equivalents 	(PYEs)
allocation provided 	to districts 	(and any 	other 	organizational
units).
Blanning 	testified 	that 	PECG 	requested 	this 	information 	to
determine 	if 	the 	layoff 	allocations 	would be 	geographically
imbalanced. 	As noted above, 	however, 	the employer's 	fundamental
management 	prerogative 	includes 	the 	authority 	to designate 	the
specific 	component 	of 	the 	agency to be 	reduced. 	(State 	of
California 	(Department of 	Forestry and Fire Protection). 	supra.
PERB Decision No. 	999-S.) 	Caltrans 	is under no obligation to
"balance" 	its allocation of PYEs to districts, 	or to negotiate
over decisions 	which result 	in 	"imbalance." 	While 	effects 	of
these decisions may be negotiable, 	it appears 	that 	PECG's 	request
for 	information 	relating 	to 	PYE 	calculation methodology pertains
to Caltrans' 	fundamental management prerogative to determine
which districts would be 	reduced. 	As 	such, 	it 	carries no
presumption of 	relevance. 	PECG provided no 	evidence 	to establish
that 	the 	information 	requested here was 	relevant 	to negotiable
effects 	of 	layoff 	or 	PECG's 	other Dills 	Act 	representational
responsibilities.
5The 	majority 	opinion addresses 	eleven 	separate 	information
requests made by PECG, 	dividing 	PECG's 	ninth information request
dated March 23, 	1995, 	into two separate requests. 	For the
remainder of 	this 	discussion 	I will 	use 	the majority's 	summaries
in 	the 	interest 	of 	consistency.
30

Assuming 	that 	the 	requested 	information was 	relevant,
however, 	the 	record shows 	that 	Caltrans 	attempted to 	comply with
this request. 	Brubaker's March 14, 	1995, 	response noted that
Caltrans 	was 	researching 	to determine 	whether written
instructions 	existed 	for 	calculating 	the 	PYE allocations. 	At 	no
time prior 	to 	the 	PERB hearing 	in 	this 	case 	did 	PECG 	indicate
that Caltrans' 	search for 	"written instructions" 	was an
inappropriate 	response to 	its 	request. 	At 	the hearing, 	Brubaker
testified 	that 	Caltrans 	apportioned 	the 	PYE 	allocations 	between
Capital 	Outlay, 	Operations 	and Maintenance, 	and then program
managers 	had 	total 	freedom to 	divide 	the 	PYE allocations 	between
the Caltrans districts. 	In March, 	Caltrans provided a copy of
the 	instructions 	outlining 	the 	assumptions 	used 	to 	set 	the
allocations 	the 	Caltrans 	Budget Department 	gave 	to 	the program
managers. 	Brubaker testified that 	no documents 	existed 	to
reflect 	the method 	of 	allocation because 	each program manager
developed his 	own methodology, 	and nothing 	in the 	record 	leads 	to
another 	conclusion. 	An employer need not 	comply with an
information request 	if 	it 	can show that 	the 	requested 	information
does not 	exist. 	(Chula Vista City School District, 	supra. 	PERB
Decision No. 	834.)
The majority's 	reference 	to an 	incorrect 	factual 	conclusion
by the ALJ as 	a 	"credibility determination" 	is puzzling. 	As
noted above, 	the 	record shows 	that 	Caltrans 	responded to 	this
request 	for 	information 	indicating 	that 	no 	documented methodology
existed. 	The 	record 	is 	devoid of 	any evidence 	that 	a documented
31

methodology did exist. 	Ignoring 	the 	record and 	Caltrans'
assertions 	and 	simply 	concluding 	that 	"some methodology must 	have
been used" 	is 	to reach a 	factual 	conclusion which 	is 	not
supported by 	the 	record.
Since 	there has been no demonstration of 	the 	relevance 	of
the 	requested 	information, 	and 	since 	Caltrans 	provided available
records 	and 	showed 	that 	no 	further documents 	existed 	to 	satisfy
this 	request, 	it did not violate 	the Dills Act by 	failing to
provide 	the method of 	calculation of 	the 	PYE allocations.
Request No. 	2
Regarding the 	$163 	million for rail projects, 	the magnitude 	of
the 	engineering 	effort which would be 	involved, 	and who will 	do
the work.
Blanning 	testified 	that 	PECG 	requested 	the 	local 	rail
project 	information 	to determine whether 	the 	State's 	diversion 	of
funds 	from Capital 	Outlay to local 	rail projects was proper, 	not
because 	the 	information was 	relevant 	to negotiating 	the 	Reduction
in Force 	agreement 	or aspects 	of 	layoff procedures 	or effects.
This 	request 	involves 	information 	concerning 	outside 	local 	agency
rail projects. 	Information regarding work outside 	the bargaining
unit 	is 	not 	presumptively 	relevant 	and 	the union bears 	the burden
of 	establishing 	the 	relevance 	of 	the 	information. 	(Duquesne 	Light
- -
Co.. 	supra. 	306 NLRB 1042.) 	PECG specifically stated the
information was 	not 	relevant 	to 	impacts 	of 	layoff 	and provided no
evidence 	the 	information was 	relevant 	to 	PECG's 	other Dills Act
representational 	responsibilities. 	In addition, 	the 	information
request 	concerned 	the propriety 	of 	the 	State's 	decision 	to 	shift
32

funds 	to 	local 	rail projects, 	a decision which the employer 	is
not 	required 	to bargain. 	There 	is 	no underlying duty 	to provide
information 	regarding nonnegotiable 	decisions. 	(Goodyear Tire 	&
Rubber, 	supra. 	312 NLRB 674; 	BC Industries, 	supra, 	307 NLRB
1275.) 	Therefore, 	Caltrans had no duty to provide 	information
regarding 	the 	funding of 	local 	rail 	projects.
Furthermore, 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	the 	information requested
related to the negotiable effects of 	Caltrans' 	decision, 	Caltrans
provided an adequate 	defense 	for 	its 	failure 	to provide 	it. 	In
his March 14, 	1995, 	response, 	Brubaker stated that Caltrans 	found
no documentation to 	satisfy this 	request. 	Brubaker's 	testimony
corroborated 	this 	response. 	Brubaker 	testified that 	the 	Caltrans
Division 	of 	Rail 	found no 	records 	relating 	to 	the 	engineering
aspects 	of 	the 	rail 	projects because 	they were 	local 	agency
projects, 	not Caltrans projects. 	Since Caltrans 	searched and
found no 	internal 	records, 	and reported the absence 	of 	records 	to
PECG, 	Caltrans 	sufficiently established that 	the 	information did
not exist. 	(Chula Vista, 	supra.)
Caltrans 	did not violate 	the Dills 	Act 	by 	failing 	to provide
information about 	local 	rail 	project 	funding and 	engineering
work.
Request No. 	3
The 	historical 	pattern of 	additional 	federal money being made
available to states which are plan ready, 	Caltrans' 	historical
share 	of 	such money, 	whether 	it 	can be 	reasonably anticipated
that 	such money will 	be available 	in the upcoming 	fiscal 	year,
and whether Caltrans 	will 	be 	in a position to take advantage 	of
that 	opportunity.
33

Blanning 	testified 	that 	PECG 	requested 	this 	information 	to
determine 	how much 	federal 	funding 	Caltrans 	anticipated 	receiving
for shelf projects,6 and how much of 	that potential 	funding
Caltrans 	might 	lose without 	sufficient 	staff 	to perform advance
design work.
Again, 	the 	employer's decision to lay off 	employees 	is 	a
matter of 	fundamental 	managerial 	prerogative and outside 	the
scope 	of 	bargaining. 	(Newman-Crows 	Landing Unified School
District 	(1982) 	PERB Decision No. 	223; 	State of California
(Department of Personnel Administration) 	(1987) 	PERB Decision
No. 	648-S.) 	The employer has no obligation to provide 	the union
with 	information 	relating 	to 	economic 	justifications 	for
nonnegotiable decisions. 	(UOP Inc. 	(1984) 	272 NLRB 999
[1117 LRRM 1429] .) 	PECG provided no evidence to establish that
the 	requested 	information was 	relevant 	to negotiable 	impacts 	of
layoff 	or 	to 	PECG's 	other Dills Act 	representational
responsibilities. 	Caltrans 	had no duty to provide 	information
regarding 	the 	amount 	of potential 	federal 	funding, 	and did not
violate 	the Dills Act by 	failing 	to provide 	this 	information.
Request No. 	4
An 	explanation of 	why a 	Caltrans 	director 	letter 	states 	that 	its
budget would be 	"significantly smaller" 	in 1995/96, 	while both
the Governor's 	Budget 	and a departmental 	Fact 	Sheet 	show an
increase 	in funding of 	$200 million.
6 "Shelf" projects 	refers 	to previously designed projects
that are awaiting funding. 	Periodically, 	the 	federal 	government
releases 	unused 	transportation dollars 	to 	states 	with 	shelf
projects.
34

Blanning 	testified 	that 	PECG 	requested 	this 	information 	to
clarify any misunderstanding 	about 	the money available 	to
Caltrans. 	Again, 	PECG sought 	information regarding the 	financial
basis 	for Caltrans' 	nonnegotiable decision to lay off 	employees
and 	the 	employer has 	no 	obligation 	to provide 	information
regarding 	economic 	justifications 	for 	that 	nonnegotiable
decision. 	(UOP Inc.. 	supra. 	272 NLRB 999.) 	PECG provided no
evidence 	to 	establish that 	the 	information was 	relevant 	to
negotiable 	impacts 	of 	layoff 	or to 	PECG's 	other Dills Act
representational 	responsibilities. 	Therefore, 	Caltrans had no
duty to provide 	this 	information.
I 	find 	the majority's 	conclusion 	that 	Caltrans violated 	the
Dills Act with regard to 	this 	request 	to be 	illogical. 	The duty
to provide 	information stems 	from the duty to bargain. 	The
majority 	correctly 	finds 	that 	the 	requested 	information 	carried
no presumption or relevance because 	it 	relates 	to a non-
negotiable 	subject, 	and Caltrans had no obligation to provide 	it.
Nonetheless, 	the majority finds a violation, 	apparently because
the majority concludes 	that 	Caltrans 	did not provide an adequate
response to the request. 	Illogically, 	therefore, 	the majority
finds 	a violation of 	the 	duty 	to provide 	information which
Caltrans 	had no duty to provide. 	I 	expressly reject 	this
misguided 	conclusion which 	is 	unsupported by any precedent.7
7The majority incorrectly cites 	Chula Vista, 	supra. 	for the
proposition 	that 	the 	employer's 	failure 	to 	respond 	to a 	request
for information is 	a violation the duty to bargain, 	even if 	the
information 	requested 	is 	unnecessary and 	irrelevant 	to 	the
exclusive 	representative's duties. 	There 	is no 	finding 	in Chula
35

Vista, 	or any other case of which I am aware, 	that a violation
occurs under these 	circumstances.
Again, 	the majority's 	reference 	to an incorrect 	factual
conclusion by 	the ALJ as 	a 	"credibility determination" 	is
puzzling. 	In fact, 	the 	record shows 	that 	Caltrans 	responded to
this 	request 	for 	information. 	Brubaker testified that 	Kiff
responded to this 	request 	at 	two separate meetings. 	In addition,
Brubaker's March 14, 	1995, 	response 	clearly indicated that 	the
issue was 	addressed 	in two documents provided to 	PECG, 	"1995-96
Budget Highlights" 	and 	"Responses 	to Questions 	Professional
Engineers 	in California Government Asked During 	Informal 	Meeting
on Proposed Reduction 	in Force 	for 	1995."
For these 	reasons, 	Caltrans did not violate 	the Dills Act by
failing 	to respond to 	this 	request.
Request No. 	5
Any workload measures 	used 	in 	determining 	staffing 	needs 	and
allocations 	for the 	current and budget years, 	including any
changes 	in 	such measures 	and/or any 	efficiencies 	which would
affect 	staffing needs.
PECG made 	this 	request 	because 	it 	wanted general 	information
about 	how Caltrans 	determined 	its 	workload and 	staffing needs.
The 	employer's 	decision to 	layoff 	employees 	is 	a matter of
fundamental 	managerial 	prerogative 	and outside 	the 	scope 	of
bargaining. 	(Newman-Crows 	Landing Unified School District.
supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	223; 	State of California 	(Department of
Personnel Administration). 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	648-S.) 	To
the 	extent 	this 	request 	relates 	to 	the decision to 	reduce
36

staffing, 	Caltrans had no duty to bargain over it 	and no
underlying 	duty 	to provide 	information 	regarding 	that 	subject.
Assuming 	the 	requested information was 	relevant, 	Caltrans
provided an adequate 	defense 	for 	its 	failure 	to provide 	the
information. 	Brubaker's March 14, 	1995, 	response stated that
Caltrans 	could not 	locate 	any documents 	to 	satisfy 	this 	request.
Brubaker's 	testimony 	confirmed 	this 	response. 	Brubaker 	testified
that 	he 	inquired of 	a Caltrans 	department 	with a 	database 	record
of 	historical 	project work effort, 	and no documents 	relating 	to
workload measures 	could be 	located. 	Since 	Caltrans 	searched and
found no 	records, 	and reported the absence of 	records 	to PECG,
Caltrans 	sufficiently established 	that 	the 	information did not
exist. 	(Chula Vista, 	supra.)
For these 	reasons, 	Caltrans did not violate 	the Dills Act by
failing 	to provide 	information about 	workload measures.
Request No. 	6
Engineering 	or related work 	(surveying, 	etc.) 	reimbursed by local
agencies 	during 	the 	current year; 	what had been planned 	for
reimbursed work during the budget year; 	and the 	current
allocation, 	limitations and rationale for such work, 	also, 	if
respondent 	has 	turned down such work, 	and/or is 	not 	actively
soliciting 	such work as 	an alternative 	to potential 	layoffs, 	the
rationale 	for 	these decisions.
PECG 	requested 	information about 	reimbursed work 	in
Blanning's January 23, 	1995, 	and February 10, 	1995, 	letters.
In his February 28, 	1995 	letter, 	Blanning states that he
understood Caltrans' 	response 	to be 	that 	the department will 	lay
off 	workers 	rather 	than honor 	commitments 	for 	reimbursed work or
seek additional work. 	In that 	same 	letter, 	Blanning stated that
37

"relevant 	information" 	would 	include 	the 	funding 	Caltrans 	lost 	by
failing 	to honor 	its 	commitments 	on 	reimbursed work and not
pursuing 	additional 	work. 	Blanning 	testified 	that 	PECG 	requested
this 	information 	to 	determine 	whether Caltrans 	could use
reimbursed work to avoid cutting staff 	or laying people 	off. 	It
appears 	that 	PECG sought 	to 	challenge 	the basis 	of 	Caltrans'
nonnegotiable 	decision to 	layoff 	employees. 	The 	employer has 	no
obligation 	to provide 	the union with 	economic 	justifications 	for
nonnegotiable decisions. 	(UOP Inc., 	supra. 	272 NLRB 999.)
Furthermore, 	to the 	extent 	that 	the 	requested information
relates 	to the negotiable effects 	of 	layoff, 	the 	record clearly
shows 	that Caltrans provided it. 	Blanning's 	February 10, 	1995,
letter notes 	that 	Caltrans 	responded to 	the 	request. 	Blanning
also 	testified 	that 	Caltrans 	provided a 	letter 	listing 	the 	PYEs
for reimbursed work. 	Brubaker's March 14, 	1995, 	response clearly
indicated 	that 	the 	issue was 	addressed 	in an attached summary
chart. 	In addition, 	Brubaker testified that he discussed
reimbursed work with Blanning 	several 	times 	at 	the bargaining
table. 	He 	told Blanning 	that 	the Governor's 	Office policy
decision was 	to 	cut 	back on 	reimbursed work because 	Caltrans
should not 	compete with 	the private 	sector 	for engineering work.
Therefore, 	the evidence shows 	that Caltrans' 	responded to this
request 	for 	information and did not violate 	the Dills Act.
Request No. 	7
Any requests, 	suggestions 	or recommendations 	from Caltrans 	or any
local 	agency 	for 	Caltrans 	or State 	government 	to perform
engineering 	or 	related 	services 	(including but 	not 	limited 	to
surveying and 	landscape 	architecture) 	on any state 	highway 	or
38

other transportation project 	since January 1, 	1993. 	For purposes
of 	this 	request, 	local agency refers 	to any governmental unit
other than the 	state 	or 	federal 	government.
PECG sought 	this 	information to determine 	if 	outside
engineering work was 	available 	from other 	sources 	to avoid
cutting staff 	or laying off 	employees. 	Again, 	this 	request
appears 	to concern the basis 	for Caltrans' 	nonnegotiable decision
to lay off 	employees. 	The 	employer has 	no 	obligation to provide
the union with 	economic 	justifications 	for nonnegotiable
decisions. 	(UOP Inc.. 	supra. 	272 NLRB 999.) 	PECG provided no
information 	to 	establish 	that 	the 	information was 	relevant 	to
negotiable 	impacts 	of 	layoff 	or to 	PECG's 	other Dills Act
representational 	responsibilities. 	Caltrans did not violate 	the
Dills Act by 	failing 	to provide 	this 	information.
Request No. 	8
Any document 	from any source dated on or after July 	1, 	1994,
which requests, 	proposes, 	recommends or analyzes the possibility
of 	additional 	future 	funding 	for transportation 	in California 	in
addition to 	the 	funding anticipated in the Governor's budget, 	not
including any measure 	on the November 	1994 	ballot.
Blanning 	testified that 	the purpose 	of 	this 	request was 	to
determine 	how any additional 	funding 	received by Caltrans 	would
be used, 	if 	it was not used to replace lost staffing. 	Again, 	it
appears 	that 	PECG 	sought 	information 	regarding 	the 	financial
basis 	for Caltrans' 	nonnegotiable decision to lay off 	employees,
and 	the 	employer has 	no 	obligation 	to provide 	information
regarding 	economic 	justifications 	for nonnegotiable 	decisions.
(UOP Inc.. 	supra. 	272 NLRB 999.) 	PECG provided no evidence to
- -
establish that 	the 	information was 	relevant 	to negotiable 	impacts
39

of 	layoff 	or to 	PECG's 	other Dills Act 	representational
responsibilities.
Assuming 	the 	requested 	information was 	relevant, 	Caltrans
provided an adequate 	defense 	for 	its 	failure 	to provide 	the
information. 	In his March 14, 	1995 	letter, 	Brubaker responded
that 	Caltrans 	budget 	staff 	did not 	understand 	PECG's 	request 	and
asked 	for 	clarification of 	the 	requested 	information. 	No
violation will 	be 	found 	if 	the 	employer 	responds 	and 	the union
never reasserts 	or clarifies 	its 	request. 	(Oakland Unified
School District, 	supra. 	PERB Decision No. 	367.) 	Blanning's
subsequent request 	for information, 	the March 23, 	1995, 	letter to
Andrews, 	contained no clarification of 	the request. 	Brubaker
testified 	that 	Blanning merely repeated 	the 	same 	request 	at 	the
bargaining 	table. 	Since 	PECG 	failed to 	establish that 	it
sufficiently clarified the 	request, 	Caltrans did not violate 	the
Dills Act by 	failing 	to provide 	this 	information.
Request No. 	9
Detailed 	information 	regarding 	the 	Caltrans 	staffing plans,
including 	chart 	showing 	the 	allocations 	to 	the 	districts 	and
headquarters units with numbers 	if 	authorized personnel 	years 	for
administration, 	capital outlay, 	etc.
While 	the 	decision to 	lay off 	employees 	is 	nonnegotiable,
the 	employer must bargain over 	the 	negotiable 	effects 	of 	that
decision. 	(State 	of 	California 	(Department 	of 	Forestry and Fire
Protection), 	supra, 	PERB Decision No. 	999-S.) 	The requested
staffing plan included a list 	of 	classifications, 	the number of
filled positions 	in 	those 	classifications by district, 	and the
net 	reduction needed during 	the 	Reduction 	in Force process.
40

Caltrans 	had a duty 	to provide 	the 	staffing plan because 	PECG
clearly 	needed 	information 	regarding 	the 	affected 	classifications
to negotiate 	the 	impacts 	of 	layoff. 	The 	record shows 	that
Caltrans 	delivered the staffing plan to PECG on March 17, 	1995.
Both Blanning 	and Brubaker 	testified 	that 	Brubaker 	sent 	PECG
updates 	as he 	received them. 	Therefore, 	the evidence shows 	that
Caltrans' 	fulfilled its 	obligation to provide 	relevant
information under the Dills Act.
Request No. 	10
Copies of 	the 	request(s) 	or response(s) 	from the districts and
headquarters' 	functional 	units 	regarding staffing plans,
personnel years, 	etc.
Blanning 	testified 	that 	PECG 	requested 	this 	information 	to
discover 	the 	rationale 	employed by 	district 	management 	in
determining staffing needs. 	This 	request 	is 	similar to the
request 	for 	the methodology of 	PYE 	allocation discussed 	in
Request No. 	1. 	To the extent 	this 	request 	involved information
regarding Caltrans' 	decision to reduce 	staff and designate
specific 	components 	of 	the agency 	for layoff, 	Caltrans 	had no
duty 	to provide 	information 	regarding 	that 	nonnegotiable
decision. 	PECG provided no 	evidence 	to establish that 	the
information was 	relevant 	to 	other negotiable 	impacts 	of 	layoff 	or
PECG's 	other Dills 	Act 	representational 	responsibilities.
Therefore, 	Caltrans 	did not violate 	the Dills Act by 	failing 	to
provide 	the 	information.8
8I 	note 	that 	the majority 	concludes 	inconsistently 	that
information 	from districts 	relating 	to personnel 	years 	is 	not
entitled 	to a presumption of 	relevance, 	yet 	information to
41

districts 	relating 	to 	the methodology 	for allocating 	those
personnel years 	(Request No. 	1) 	is presumed relevant.
Request No. 	11
A listing of 	all 	Unit 	9 	vacancies 	filled in any state 	department
or agency, 	on a monthly basis, 	beginning on January 10, 	1995,
including vacancies 	filled by hiring, 	transfers, 	promotions, 	or
any 	other method.
PECG 	requested 	information 	regarding Unit 	9 	vacancies 	in
Blanning's March 23, 	1995, 	letter to Andrews. 	Although the
decision to lay off 	employees 	is nonnegotiable, 	the employer must
bargain over the negotiable effects 	of 	that decision. 	(State of
California 	(Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 	supra.
PERB Decision No. 	999-S.) 	Caltrans had a duty to provide 	this
information because 	PECG 	clearly 	needed 	information 	regarding
other Unit 	9 	vacancies available 	in state 	service 	to negotiate
the 	impacts 	of 	layoff. 	Caltrans admits 	that 	it 	failed to provide
this 	information. 	Caltrans' 	failure to provide the information
regarding Unit 	9 vacancies violated Dills Act 	section 3519(c).
Caltrans 	failure 	to provide 	the 	information also violated Dills
Act 	section 3519(b) 	by denying PECG the 	right 	to 	represent 	its
members.
SUMMARY
Based on the 	foregoing 	review of 	the 	facts 	of 	this 	case and
application of 	the 	relevant 	legal principles and precedent, 	I
conclude 	that 	Caltrans violated Dills Act 	section 3519(b) 	and 	(c)
when 	it 	failed 	to provide 	PECG with 	information necessary and
relevant 	to 	its 	representational 	duties. 	I would order an
appropriate 	remedy.
42

I 	offer some brief additional 	thoughts. 	Among the primary-
purposes 	of 	the Dills Act 	is 	"to promote 	full 	communication
between the state and its employees 	. 	. 	. 	." 	(Dills Act
section 3512). 	This purpose is served in a cooperative, 	good
faith 	employer-employee 	relationship when 	the 	exclusive
representative has 	access 	to 	information 	it 	needs 	to 	fulfill 	its
obligation to 	represent 	employees, 	including 	information which
will 	assist 	it 	in understanding management 	decisions 	which may or
may not 	be 	subject 	to negotiations. 	Requesting 	information
through a 	scattergun, 	combative approach designed more 	to
challenge management 	decisions 	than 	to understand 	them 	is
unlikely to serve this purpose. 	Similarly, 	in a cooperative,
good faith relationship, 	the 	employer accepts 	its 	obligation to
inform the 	exclusive 	representative, 	and understands 	that
providing 	information pertaining 	to management 	decisions 	which
may not 	be 	subject 	to negotiations 	improves 	the possibility 	that
those 	decisions 	will 	be 	supported and 	effectively 	implemented.
Delaying 	or 	stonewalling 	on 	information 	requests 	merely because
legal 	precedent may allow such conduct 	is 	unlikely 	to 	serve 	the
purposes 	of 	the Dills Act.
It 	is my 	impression that 	a higher degree 	of 	commitment 	to
the Dills Act purpose described above by the parties 	to 	this 	case
would 	have 	eliminated 	the 	need 	for a 	decision by 	the 	Public
Employment 	Relations 	Board to 	resolve 	this 	dispute.
43

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. 	SA-CE-750-S,
Professional 	Engineers 	in California Government v. 	State 	of
California 	(Departments 	of 	Personnel 	Administration and
Transportation). 	in which all parties had the right 	to
participate, 	it 	has been found that 	the State of 	California
(Departments 	of 	Personnel 	Administration and Transportation)
violated the Ralph C. 	Dills Act 	(Dills Act), 	Government Code
section 3519(b) 	and 	(c).
As 	a result 	of 	this 	conduct, 	we have been ordered to post
this 	notice 	and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Denying to 	the 	Professional 	Engineers 	in
California Government 	(PECG) 	rights 	guaranteed to 	them by 	the
Dills Act.
2. 	Refusing or 	failing 	to meet and confer 	in good
faith with 	PECG.
B. 	TAKE 	THE 	FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS 	DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE 	POLICIES 	OF THE DILLS ACT:
1. 	Provide to PECG, 	upon request, 	the method of
calculation 	of 	personnel 	year 	equivalents 	allocation provided 	to
the 	State 	(Department 	of 	Transportation) 	districts 	(and any other
organizational 	units) 	during 	the 	relevant 	time period.
2. 	Provide to PECG, 	upon request, 	some response to
Request No. 	4.
3. 	Provide to PECG, 	upon request, 	specified listings
of all 	State Bargaining Unit 	9 	(Unit 	9) 	vacancies 	filled in any
state department 	or agency, 	on a monthly basis, 	beginning on
January 10, 	1995, 	including vacancies 	filled by hiring,
transfers, 	promotions, 	or any other method.
Dated: 	STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA 	(DEPARTMENTS
OF 	PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AND
TRANSPORTATION)
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 BY ANY
MATERIAL.
(