By Rick Gautschi
In City of Tacoma, Decision 11064-A (PECB, 2012), An employer police department, contracted with another police department, to investigate an allegation that one of the employer’s police officers had threatened to kill his wife, another police officer with whom the first officer was allegedly having an affair, and himself. The investigation identified as a material witness, another of the employer police department’s officers. The employer summoned the officer, who allegedly made the threats to an investigatory meeting. The summoned officer, selected the officer identified as a material witness to be his union representation at the meeting. The employer excluded the summoned officer’s choice of a Weingarten representative, but gave the summoned officer the option of choosing another representative. The summoned officer selected another representative and attended the subsequent investigatory meeting with that representative. Afterwards, the union claimed that the employer had committed an unfair labor practice by excluding the summoned officer’s first choice of a representative.
The Commission explained that an employee does not have an absolute right to select his Weingarten representative. Instead, the employer may exclude the employee’s selection if the employer can prove special or extenuating circumstances.
Adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Hearing Examiner, the Commission ruled that the material witness status of the employee’s first choice of a Weingarten representative established a conflict of interest. As a result, a special or extenuating circumstance justified the employer’s decision to give the employee the choice of selecting another representative for the investigatory meeting. Consequently, the employer did not commit an unfair labor practice of interfering with the employee’s rights, or dominating or assisting the union.
