By Rick Gautschi
In Central Washington University, Decision 10967-A (PECB, 2012) during May 2009, the employer indicated that it was considering making changes to the hours of work of certain employees. In October 2009, the union filed a representation petition to include those employees in a bargaining unit. In early May 2010, PERC’s Executive Director dismissed the petition. The following day, the union appealed the dismissal to the Commission and gave notice of the appeal to the employer. Later the same month, the employer announced its decision to reduce the work hours of the employees who were the subject of the representation petition. On June 3, 2010, the union filed an unfair labor practice complaint, alleging that the employer had failed to preserve the status quo and in doing so had unlawfully interfered with the employees’ rights. The following day, the union withdrew its appeal.
The Commission explained that from the time of the filing of a representation petition, until either the date a final decision is reached on the petition, or the date that a union is certified, an employer has a duty to preserve the status quo. The Commission rejected the employer’s argument that the applicable status quo dated from October 2009, when the employer indicated that it was considering reducing the hours of work of certain employees.
The Commission explained that the dynamic status quo is “set in motion” once the employer has communicated its intent to be bound by a decision and employees thus have an expectation that the employer will implement the decision. The evidence supported a determination that the status quo was set in motion in May 2010. The employer argued, also, that for two reasons, by statute its decision to reduce work hours was exempted from the obligation to preserve the status quo. The Commission rejected both arguments: Although the employer claimed that the decision to reduce work hours was included in decisions about its budget, it had eliminated none of the subject employees’ positions. Second, despite the employer’s contention that it was dealing with an emergency of unprecedented scope, it did not communicate that “fact” to the employees. Nor, although it could have, the employer did not request from PERC a stay in its obligation to preserve the status quo. The Commission affirmed the decision that the employer had unlawfully interfered with employees’ rights, but because the union withdrew the appeal, the Commission reversed the decision to order the employer to cease and desist.
