By Therese Norton
In a re
cent decision, PERC Hearing Examiner Robin A. Romeo dismissed an interference complaint brought by some state community colleges against the Washington Public Employees Association (WPEA). Bellevue Community College, Decision 11469-A (PSRA, 2013). The community college employers alleged that WPEA had interfered with its right to select its bargaining representative, a multi-college coalition representative called the Labor Relations Office (LRO). They alleged WPEA committed an unfair labor practice when it communicated directly with the employer and attempted to sever the relationship between the colleges and the LRO. Examiner Romeo looked at the specific language of the Personnel System Reform Act of 2002 (the law covering collective bargaining for most Washington State government employees) and concluded, “Nowhere in the statute does it state that it is an unfair labor practice for an employee organization to interfere with or discourage an employer in its choice of representative.”
The issue in this case arose after WPEA sought to renegotiate a legislatively mandated 3 percent temporary salary reduction that was included in the parties 2011-2013 CBA. The temporary salary reduction applied to classified employees who were union members, but it did not apply to administrative, exempt, faculty, or non-represented classified employees. WPEA had learned that some community colleges did not think the 3 percent salary reduction was necessary, so it sent letters to the LRO and to the community colleges directly. The LRO declined the union’s request to renegotiate. WPEA also sent letters encouraging its members to contact the presidents of the community colleges by sending postcards stating, “We know you believe in fairness. Please negotiate with our union.”
The examiner compared the language of the Personnel System Reform Act of 2002, Chapter 41.80 RCW to the older Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act, Chapter 41.56 RCW noting that the relevant language is “considerably different.” RCW 41.80.110 provides:
(2) It is an unfair labor practice for an employee organization:
(a) To restrain or coerce an employee in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by this chapter: PROVIDED, that this subsection shall not impair the right of an employee organization to proscribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership in the employee organization or to an employer in the selection of its representatives for the purpose of bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.
The examiner found that,
[T]he language of 41.80.110(2)(a) only applies to the protection of employees, not employer rights. This language does not extend a right to the employer to be free from interference in the selection of its bargaining representative. This language conditions the finding of an unfair labor practice by a union for actions taken against an employee. The language creates an exception to the protection of the employee rights. It does not create an independent right for employers to allege union interference.
The examiner also examined subparts (2)(b) and (c) of the statute and found that they also do not prohibit employee organizations from interfering with an employer’s choice of representative. The examiner explained,
Had the legislature intended to protect the employer from union restraint or coercion in the selection of its bargaining representative in Chapter 41.80 RCW, it could have specifically done so.
The examiner continued,
Whether the absence of the language similar to RCW 41.59.140(2)(a) by the legislature was intentional or by mistake, it is not within the power of the Examiner to impose a cause of action on the statute to mirror those section.
The community colleges also alleged that WPEA engaged in direct dealing and circumvented the employer’s designated representative. The examiner dismissed these claims because those claims fall under a refusal to bargain claim and the refusal to bargain claim had already been dismissed in the preliminary ruling. The only allegation that was before the examiner was union interference. Accordingly, the unfair labor practice complaints were dismissed in their entirety.
