By Therese Norton
The Public Employment Relations Commission recently affirmed Examiner Romeo’s ruling that Washington State University (WSU) refused to bargain with the Public School Employees of Washington union when it failed to bargain an increase in employees’ workloads caused by a layoff. Washington State University, Decision 11704-A (PSRA 2013).
We discussed the Examiner’s decision in a previous blog article.
In an abbreviated decision, the Commission simply stated that the Examiner “correctly stated the legal standard” and “substantial evidence supports the Examiner’s findings of facts [and] conclusions of law.” Essentially, Examiner Romeo found that, although the decision to layoff the employee was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, the employer must still bargain with the union over the increased workload because the decision impacts working conditions, which are mandatory subjects of bargaining. The increased workload, the Examiner found, was “an impact from the change in staffing levels.”
The testimony presented at the hearing conflicted regarding the extent the layoff caused a change in the workload of the remaining employees. The Commission attached “considerable weight” to the Examiner’s finding that the custodian’s testimony that the change resulted in a significant impact on their working conditions. When facing such challenges, it’s crucial to understand how to prove a hostile work environment and gather evidence to support your case.
The Examiner’s decision addressed a number of other issues the Commission did not consider. The union did not follow the proper procedure to appeal those issues. The Commission stated, it “expects the parties to monitor their own compliance with the rules.”
