By Christopher Casillas and Jordan L. Jones
In Seattle School District, PERC Examiner Ramerman held that the Employer refused to bargain in good faith by failing to timely provide relevant information requested by the International Union of Operating Engineers in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and (4). Examiner Ramerman noted that “although the [E]mployer acknowledged the [Union’s information] request two weeks after the request was made, the [E]mployer ‘dropped the ball’ and took no additional action for approximately five weeks from late August 2013 until early October 2013.”
In this case, the Union filed two Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) complaints on behalf of food service workers and a separate bargaining unit comprised of custodial engineers and gardeners after the Seattle School District failed to provide information regarding changes it was making to employees’ Job Analyses.
Job Analyses, or JAs, are utilized in the accommodation process of employees by providing “a kind of in depth look at the details of the tasks that a person would perform while doing their job” such as lifting and standing requirements. In others words, JAs provide “more detail than a standard job description would have” to medical providers who are responsible for clearing injured employees attempting to return to work.
The Union was particularly interested in the changes that the Employer was making to JAs because one employee, who was injured while on the job, was delayed from returning to work because she could not meet a 100-pound lifting requirement specified in a JA. Another employee was similarly restricted from coming back to work because of a lifting requirement detailed in her JA. In both cases, the Union felt that the employee was able to safely return to work and that the JA was outdated and inaccurate.
Subsequently, on August 12, 2013, the Union made an information request to the Employer regarding the changes it was making to JAs because it wanted to evaluate whether there was a possible grievance and/or other action available to be taken against the Employer. By October 31, 2013, the Employer had still not provided the requested information and the Union filed two ULP complaints.
The Union argued before PERC that “the information requested was relevant to its role in representing injured bargaining unit members because the return to work process overlaps with its contract administration duties.”
On the other hand, the Employer asserted that “‘[t]here was no affirmative denial or refusal’ [on its part] to provide the requested information” but that the “delayed response was inadvertent and due to [a Seattle School District official’s] . . . vacation.”
Examiner Ramerman stated that “there is no such thing as good faith delay where an information request is concerned; rather the fact that the information was not timely supplied is the violation.”
Here, the [U]nion made a request relevant to the performance of its duties . . . . Therefore, the [E]mployer’s argument that its delayed response to the August 12, 2013 request was due to a good faith misunderstanding as to which [E]mployer representative would respond to the request is not a defense. At the end of nearly three months, the [E]mployer still had not supplied the [U]nion with the information it requested nor communicated any particular concerns regarding the request.
Examiner Ramerman also noted that “[a]t no time prior to filing these ULP complaints did the [E]mployer communicate to the [U]nion any confusion or uncertainty regarding the information request that would require clarification from the [U]nion.”
The Seattle School District was found to have “failed to bargain in good faith by not timely proving the relevant, requested information to the [U]nion.” PERC ordered the Employer to create a process that clearly identified which individuals were responsible for “responding to Chapter 41.56 RCW information requests . . . [that] will . . . account for . . . instances of unavailability of individual(s) assigned by the [E]mployer with the duty to responding to such information requests.”
