party to institute further negotiations. There was no evidence of
any "bad faith" by the employer in the course of actual negotiations.
In addition, it would appear that further impasse procedures were
not available to the parties under the Board's decision in Belmond
4/
Community School District,- due to the conflict between the union's
late certification and the relationship of statutory impasse pro-
cedures to the City's budget certification date.
Based upon the above facts, it is clear that the parties had
reached a bona fide impasse upon the completion of mediation on
April 29. Therefore, I find that the changes in wage rates and
related items made by the City Council on June 7, 1976, in accord-
ance with the City's last offer in negotiations, were neither a
per se violation of the Act nor evidence of bad faith bargaining,
and thus did not violate Sections 10.1, 10.2(e) or 10.2(f) of the
Act.
However, there remains the issue of the job classification
change enacted by the Council on April 7, 1976. This change was
enacted while the parties were still involved in the negotiations
process, before the parties last joint bargaining session and the
two mediation sessions. As such, the change in job classifications
occurred before the parties had reached a bona fide impasse in
negotiations.
The City argues in its brief that it was under no obligation
to bargain over the enacted change in job classifications, since
the change took place in a permissive subject of bargaining, and
cites as authority the Board's decision in Bettendorf-Dubugue.
4/ Belmond Community School District, PERB Case No. 558,
(Declaratory Ruling, 1975).
