By: Jordan L. Jones
In King County (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587), PERC held that ATU Local 587 committed a ULP when it submitted a permissive subject of bargaining to interest arbitration. Examiner De La Rosa found that King County’s decision to move the Millwrights from the Vehicle Maintenance Section to the Power & Facilities Section was a managerial prerogative and therefore a permissive subject of bargaining.
In this case, King County proposed during contract negotiations to reorganize its workforce by moving the Millwright job classification in the Metro Transit Division’s Vehicle Maintenance Section to the same division’s Power & Facilities Section. Employees in both sections were in the same bargaining unit. Subsequently, the Union pushed to certify King County’s proposal to reorganize its workforce to interest arbitration.
Examiner De La Rosa found that there was actually two different elements to the proposal made by King County in negotiations. The first element of the proposal was the organizational change, which included changing the supervision for the Millwrights to the other Section and amending position descriptions and organizational charts to reflect the new reporting structure. In contrast, the second element of the proposal involved changing the terms and conditions of employment of the Millwrights by moving them from falling under Article 17 to Article 18 of the CBA. Examiner De La Rosa noted that:
An interest arbitration eligible party can bargain to impasse and seek interest arbitration on mandatory subjects. Interest arbitration eligible parties are also free to discuss and negotiate permissive subjects of bargaining, but each party is free to bargain or not bargain and to agree or not to agree about those permissive subjects. An interest arbitration eligible party commits an unfair labor practice violation when it seeks interest arbitration on a permissive subject of bargaining.
Examiner De La Rosa found that during negotiations King County consistently contended that only the first element of its proposal, the organizational change, was a managerial prerogative and therefore a permissive subject of bargaining. King County did not dispute that the second element of the proposal, which involved changing the terms and conditions of employment, was a mandatory subject of bargaining and that the County was willing to negotiate with the Union.
PERC held that King County’s decision to reorganize the Millwrights by moving them to the Power & Facilities Section was a permissive subject of bargaining and therefore the Union committed a ULP by bargaining in bad faith my insisting on that issue to interest arbitration.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on The Statutory Prohibition on Unilateral Changes.
