By Rick Gautschi
In University of Washington, Decision 11414 (PSRA, 2012), the University of Washington’s Harborview Medical Center, operated a Patient Access Center (PAC). Employees in the PAC were part of a collective bargaining unit. In 2010, the employer decided to consolidate the operations of the PAC with another unit, into a new Contact Center (CC). Subsequently, the employer informed the PAC’s employees they would have to apply for positions in the CC and would not be part of the bargaining unit. Later, the union filed a unit clarification petition and an unfair labor practice complaint alleging that employer had committed refusal to bargain and interference violations by consolidating the PAC functions into the CC because the employees who performed the functions that were previously performed by employees in the PAC would not be part of the bargaining unit. The clarification petition was held in abeyance pending the outcome on the unfair labor practice complaint. In 2011, the union made a demand to bargain and sent the employer a request for information about changes to the hours of operation and employee schedules at the CC. Subsequently, the union reiterated its demand to bargain and reminded the employer of the request for information. Over a period of approximately six months the union made six demands to bargain and four requests for information. During that period, a hearing examiner ruled that the employer did not have to bargain the decision to consolidate operations, but it did have a duty to bargain the effects of the consolidation. Regardless, the employer refused to bargain and to provide information to the union. In the employer’s view the decision was of no effect because the employer had appealed the decision to the Commission.
Here, the Hearing Examiner explained that the employees in the CC who performed the tasks, that employees in the PAC had previously performed, were part of the bargaining unit until there was a determination otherwise in the unit clarification proceeding. Consequently, by refusing to meet and bargain with the union over changes of hours, employee schedules, and to provide information, the employer had committed unfair labor practice violations.
Also, because the employer repeatedly insisted that the employees in the CC were not members of the bargaining unit, gave those employees no choice but to accept that status or find another job, and refused to bargain or provide requested information, the employees in the CC reasonably could have perceived that the employer was discouraging union activity. Consequently, the employer unlawfully interfered with union activities.
