By Therese Norton
In Seattle School District, PERC Examiner Emily Whitney dismissed a discrimination complaint brought by the Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council against the Seattle School District. The Trades Council had alleged that the School District discriminated against a foreperson in the sheet metal shop when it demoted him after laying off two other staff members.
In spring 2013, the School District’s manager of the Major Preventative Maintenance Department became aware of some funding issues that would require a large transfer of capital. The transfer would take time to approve. The employer asserted that there was insufficient work to sustain the sheet metal shop as it was staffed at that time and decided to lay off two employees and demoted the foreperson, Tighe Peterson. Around the same time, Peterson voiced concerns to the manager that the sheet metal shop was receiving fewer work orders because of skimming of bargaining unit work.
The first step in a discrimination case is to show that the individual who was being discriminated against has engaged in a protected activity; has lost some kind of benefit/status; and, that there is a connection between the protected activity and the lost benefit. In this case, Examiner Whitney found that the Trades Council showed that Peterson had engaged in protected activity by expressing his concerns at a leadership meeting about the skimming of work from the sheet metal shop. The Trades Council also showed that Peterson was deprived of pay and status by being demoted. And, because he was demoted one day after he expressed his concerns, there was a causal connection.
In response, the School District offered four non-discriminatory reasons for demoting Peterson from his foreperson position: the demotion occurred according to the terms of the parties CBA, the district had already decided to lay off employees before Peterson expressed his concerns, the layoffs were only temporary and part of the ebb and flow of work; and lastly, the district said that Peterson’s concern about skimming was not a new concern. Peterson testified at the hearing that the concern about skimming had begun approximately a decade earlier.
Examiner Whitney rejected the Trade Council’s argument that these reasons were merely a cover for illegal discrimination, or pretextual, because the layoff notices stated the layoff were due to lack of work and the School District showed that it did not have enough work to fund two full-time positions. Examiner Whitney explained,
The employer produced evidence that Peterson’s removal from his foreperson position was prompted by an unrelated monetary and workload issue. The union was unable to establish that the employer’s non-discriminatory reason for demoting Peterson from his foreperson position was pretextual or that union animus was a substantial motivating factor in the employer’s decision to temporarily demote Peterson from his position.
Examiner Whitney dismissed the discrimination complaint along with any derivative interference claim. The Trade Council had also originally filed a claim concerning domination or assistance of union, but this claim was dismissed before the hearing. Seattle School District, Decision 11779.
