By Therese Norton
A group of individuals petitioned the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) to decertify the Public School Employees of Washington/Puyallup Association of Education Office Personnel as the exclusive bargaining representative of clerical employees at the Puyallup School District. Following a mail ballot election, the employees chose to remain represented by the union. The group subsequently alleged that the union engaged in objectionable conduct that affected the results of the election. In Puyallup School District, the Commission dismissed the election objections brought by the group. Decision 12067 (PECB, 2014).
The Commission first considered which of the individuals filing the election objections had standing to file such objections. PERC rules state that individual employees have standing to object to conduct or procedures which prevented them from casting a ballot. In this case, all of the individuals filing the election objection actually cast ballots; thus, the Commission determined those individuals did not have standing to contest the outcome of the election. Only the individual who filed the decertification petition had standing to file the objection.
The employees’ alleged that the ballot was confusing because they understood they were voting to decertify, and a ‘yes’ vote should have meant decertification. The ballot asked employees, “Do you wish to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by: PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES OF WASHINGTON.” The ballot instructed the voter to “mark an ‘X’ in the box of choice.” The boxes for choice were next to the words yes or no. The Commission examined this language and determined it clearly asked the voter if he or she would like to be represented.
The employees had a litany of other objections to the elections, including that the union action violated their right to privacy by making phone calls and home visits to employees and that the home addresses and phone numbers were inappropriately provided to the union. The employees alleged that union representatives visited the homes of bargaining unit employees, urged employees to vote in favor of the union, asked how employees voted, misrepresented how employees were voting, and that union provided misleading information.
The union responded to this objection saying that its conduct was standard campaign and organizing practice, and asserted there was no evidence that the union threatened or promised benefits to the employees.
The Commission determined that the union’s conduct does not rise to the level to warrant setting aside the election. The Commission’s procedures guarantee employees a “limited right to privacy.” In previous cases, the Commission has ruled that unions are permitted to contact employees at home for campaigning purposes. Similarly, unions may conduct exit polling (where an employee is asked how he/she voted) because ultimately the individual has a choice whether or not to disclose this information.
The employees also alleged that the union did not allow equal time to present information at membership meetings; that the union misrepresented the position of the Commission related to the decertification; and that the employees feared retaliation by the union. The union’s response argued that it did not misrepresent how employees voted or misrepresented any fact or the law on a salient issue.
The Commission declined to get involved in the internal union functions, such as how the union organized its membership meetings. In only the “rarest of circumstances” will the Commission interfere in such internal matters. On the other hand, the Commission seriously evaluates any allegations that the union made statements about the Commission that could give the impression that the Commission favored or disfavored the union. In this case, the Commission determined that the statements made by the union about the unit clarification procedures were “a correct statement of the law” and the remaining statements were insufficient to have improperly affected the outcome of the election. Additionally, the employees had time to respond to any allegations raised at the meeting before the ballots were mailed, and they did not do so.
The Commission concluded its decision by stating that employees may file an unfair labor practice complaint if employees believe they have been retaliated against by the union.
Editor’s Note [Chris Casillas]: Unions have wide latitude in regulating their conduct during organizing or decertification campaigns, which can include home visits, organizing rallies, sending out literature, and conducting exit polling. As emphasized by PERC, the agency is loathed to involve itself in internal union processes or meetings during such campaigns. However, PERC will get involved, and possibly set aside an election, if there is evidence that a union has improperly commented on the role of PERC in such proceedings; made false or misleading statements; or threatened or attempted to coerce employees during the voting process. Any such behavior will only invite a challenge to any election and open up the possibility that PERC will set aside what may otherwise have been a favorable vote.
