Bump in the Road on UC Vaccination Mandate?

The California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has just decided a case involving a mandate for flu shots at UC which seems likely to spill over to the new mandate for coronavirus vaccinations. The full decision is not yet available on the PERB website but the agency has provided a summary:

Decision 2783H – Regents of the University of California

SF-CE-1300-H and SF-CE-1302-H

Decision Date: July 26, 2021

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  The Regents of the University of California issued an Executive Order requiring “all students, faculty, and staff living, learning, or working” on University premises to receive an influenza vaccination by November 1, 2020. The complaints alleged that the University made the decision and implemented that decision without satisfying its obligation to meet and confer with unions representing employees working on University premises.

Disposition: The Board found that the decision to adopt the influenza vaccination policy was outside the scope of representation because under the unprecedented circumstances of a potential confluence of the COVID-19 and influenza viruses, the need to protect public health was not amenable to collective bargaining or, alternatively, outweighed the benefits of bargaining over the policy as to University employees. The Board also found, however, that the University was not privileged to implement the vaccination policy before completing negotiations over its effects because it did not meet and confer in good faith prior to implementation. Based on these findings, the University’s implementation of the vaccination policy constituted an unlawful unilateral change in violation of HEERA.

Source: https://perb.ca.gov/decision/2783H/

Here's what the decision seems to mean. Note that it does not apply to employees (including faculty) not represented by unions nor to students.

Essentially, UC is free - as far as PERB is concerned - to mandate flu shots (and presumably also coronavirus shots). But UC has to bargain in good faith about the effects of the policy. Effects would include what happens to employees who do not comply. So, the distinction between not bargaining about the mandate but bargaining about the effects of the mandate is a bit fuzzy. What happens if after good faith bargaining, there is an impasse? At that point, the university could implement its policy. The unions involved may be entitled to strike should that occur, depending on contract language.

The key point, however, is that bargaining in good faith takes time.