By Chris Casillas
A Washington Court of Appeals recently sent a case involving Kitsap County’s decision to layoff two corrections officers back to the Trial Court for further consideration. In Kitsap County v. Kitsap County Correctional Officers’ Guild, Inc., the Appeals Court determined that the Trial Court erred when it failed to conduct the required Balancing Analysis to determine whether the County’s decision to layoff two corrections officers, based on an alleged jail budget shortfall, was a mandatory or permissive subject of bargaining.
The case arose in a procedurally unusual manner. In response to a Demand to Bargain letter from the Guild seeking to negotiate over the County’s decision to layoff two of its members, the County immediately filed an Action for Declaratory Judgment in Mason County Superior Court. The Superior Court then asserted original jurisdiction to hear the County’s claim, as well as several cross-claims filed by the Guild, including an assertion that the County had committed an unfair labor practice for refusing to bargain over its decision to layoff members of the Corrections’ Guild. The Superior Court judge issued a decision on Summary Judgment; however, the Order was subsequently appealed.
The Guild’s primary argument on appeal was that the Superior Court failed to engage in the mandatory Balancing Analysis required to assess whether a subject of bargaining is properly classified as mandatory or permissive. The Appeals Court focused on past Washington State Supreme Court precedent, indicating that this Balancing Analysis must always be conducted in order to determine whether an employer has committed a Refusal to Bargain unfair labor practice. The Balancing Analysis requires the Court, or more often PERC, to weigh what are considered traditional managerial prerogatives against how closely the issue relates to a wage, hour, or working condition. The Court of Appeals, commenting on this, noted:
“Arguably, the layoffs heavily impact employees’ working conditions, but, on these facts, the County’s duty to implement a budget weighs on the management prerogative side of the balance. With such significant interest on each side of the balance, it is important that the trial court carefully consider the specific facts of this case and balance the competing interests.”
The Appeals Court also found that the Guild did not contractually waive its right to bargain over layoffs. The court pointed out that the labor contract containing alleged the waivers expired over a year before layoffs occurred and the County and the Guild had not yet negotiated a new contract. The court said, “Waivers are permissive subjects [of bargaining] that expire with the collective bargaining agreement unless they are renewed by mutual consent.” Here, there was no evidence that the parties intended to renew the alleged waivers. Thus, the Court concluded that the County failed to prove the Union clearly and unmistakably waived their bargaining rights. The matter was remanded back to the Superior Court to properly apply the Balancing Analysis.
