# data[].attributes.body
Was RGSU guilty of bad faith bargaining by insisting to impasse on nonmandatory subjects and by refusing to make any salary counterproposals?

# data[].attributes.body
Was the City guilty of bad faith negotiations by:

1. Agreeing to the “Me Too” clause?

2. Not meeting to clarify over the issues of crew size and crew makeup?

3. Unilaterally adopting:

The “Me Too” clause?

The crew size makeup?

The FMLA/CFRA regulations on beginning of leave time?

# data[].attributes.body
The City of Riverbend manages labor relations with three principal employee groups: the Riverbend Professional Staff Union (RPSU) representing white-collar workers, the Riverbend Public Safety Union (RPSU-Police), and the Riverbend General Services Union (RGSU), which covers blue-collar employees. Historically, RGSU has held significant sway in negotiations due to its high political engagement, and as a result, the other unions typically wait for RGSU to finalize its contract before pursuing wage talks of their own.

Recently, however, the landscape began to shift. RPSU-Police has grown more assertive, particularly after one of its endorsed candidates secured a seat on Riverbend’s five-member City Council the previous year. With all labor agreements up for renewal this year, the police union chose to lead the way.

RPSU-Police reached a deal early on: a total 6% wage increase spread over three years, with no raise in the first year. In exchange, the union asked for protection against being undercut by any later, more generous agreements with other unions. The City agreed to this through a “me-too” clause, which included a provision that no other bargaining unit would receive a pay increase during the current fiscal year.

City negotiators believed that this clause would help curb wage growth expectations and aid in setting the tone for discussions with RGSU. The City aimed to replicate the police deal, proposing 0% in the first year, followed by 3% increases in the second and third years.

But when the RGSU team learned of the “me-too” agreement with the police union, they reacted strongly. They viewed the clause as a constraint on fair bargaining and refused to present any proposals unless the clause was revoked. Talks broke down, and the City declared impasse. Despite multiple mediation sessions, three contentious topics remained unresolved: wage increases, the timing of how family medical leave runs concurrently with paid sick leave, and the staffing structure for a large pipeline construction project.

Believing additional negotiations would not be productive, the City moved forward with a unilateral implementation of employment terms for the upcoming year. This action followed proper notice and delivery of a final written offer to RGSU. The union did not pursue factfinding.

The City maintained that its adjustments to leave policy were mandated by federal and state regulations and thus not open to bargaining. Similarly, it argued that decisions about how construction teams are assembled fall squarely within management’s exclusive rights. Regarding wages, the City noted that the first-year pay freeze was consistent with what the police unit had accepted. However, because unilateral implementation does not establish a multi-year agreement, there were no increases planned for years two and three—unlike what had been proposed in earlier talks.

Shortly thereafter, RGSU filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the state’s labor board, raising several objections:

1. The City should suspend its changes to the medical leave policy until RGSU has the opportunity to negotiate the timing of sick leave usage in relation to family leave;

2. The City should be compelled to negotiate the composition and deployment of work crews;

3. The City must meet and confer to determine whether the disputed topics are mandatory subjects of bargaining;

4. The “me-too” clause should be deemed invalid, and the City should resume salary negotiations unencumbered by that agreement, restoring its previously offered 3% raises in the second and third years.

The complaint placed Riverbend’s approach to both its bargaining strategy and interpretation of managerial authority under significant scrutiny, marking a pivotal moment in the City’s labor relations posture.

# data[].attributes.body
If the City agreed to engage in decision and/or effects bargaining regarding any mandatory subjects, how long must the negotiations continue?

# data[].attributes.body
While working through the scenario, what specific parts of the situation felt most realistic or familiar to your experience in the workplace? Describe how these elements affected your engagement with the material.

# data[].attributes.body
In your view, what are the most important takeaways from this scenario for someone working in a government role with labor relations responsibilities? Why do you think these stand out?

# data[].attributes.body
Reflect on the City of Riverbend labor relations scenario. Then answer each discussion post with a thoughtful response.

# data[].attributes.body
How well did the structure of the scenario help you visualize the practical application of labor law principles? Were there elements that made the learning experience more impactful or harder to follow?

# data[].attributes.body
How likely are you to use the insights from this scenario in your professional role? Provide a specific example of how you might apply what you learned in a future situation.

# data[].attributes.body
If you had to explain this scenario and your interpretation of it to a coworker unfamiliar with labor law, how would you break it down for them? What would you emphasize and why?