By Therese Norton
In a recent PERC decision, Examiner Slone-Gomez dismissed a union discrimination claim because the union was unable to prove that the employer discriminated against a bargaining unit member by terminating him in reprisal for union activities. City of Centralia, Decision 11687 (PECB, 2013).
The case involved police officer Phillip Reynolds, who was employed by the City of Centralia. On January 1, 2012, Officer Reynolds was questioned by his shift supervisor about a fellow officer’s complaint that Officer Reynolds failed to “back up” his other officers on police dispatch calls. As is commonly the practice, officers are expected to “back up” other officers on dispatch calls that required officer response. Officer Reynolds insisted that his union representative be present and refused to answer his shift supervisor’s questions about his lack of assistance. The shift supervisor reported the incident up the chain of command and Officer Reynolds was sent home on administrative leave. Then, following an investigation, Officer Reynolds was terminated.
In his decision, Examiner Slone-Gomez found that Officer Reynolds had engaged in protected union activity and he was harmed because of asserting his union rights. The city offered substantial evidence that his termination was a result of previous instances of significant misconduct. Although two of the individuals involved in the investigation demonstrated union animus, the Examiner found that the Chief was the sole and final decision maker and he did not have union animus. Therefore, the union failed to establish that Officer Reynolds was terminated in retaliation for his union activity and the case was dismissed.
