By Jim Cline and Kim Lowe
In City of Bellingham and City of Issaquah, PERC Executive Director Sellars ruled that both units would stay intact, dismissing severance petitions that would have broken certain police support employees from the larger units. Director Sellars found that the disputed employees and their existing unit still share a community of interest in spite of certain member dissatisfaction issues. Sellars also noted that severance in Issaquah would create work jurisdiction disputes that did not exist before.
In Issaquah, the existing bargaining unit included all Non-Commissioned employees of the police department and was represented by the Issaquah Police Support Services Association (IPSSA). The Issaquah Police Communications Association (IPCA) filed a petition to sever just the four dispatch employees from the IPSSA unit and change their representation to the IPCA.
In Bellingham, there was an existing wall-to-wall unit of nonuniformed personnel represented by the Guild of Pacific Northwest Employees (GPNWE). A petition was filed by the Washington State Council of County and City Employees (WSCCCE) to sever just the 24 police support employees and change their representation to WSCCCE. The proposed new unit would have included civilian code compliance officers who had been moved out of the police department as a result of state police reform legislation.
The IPCA in Issaquah justified its severance petition on the grounds that the dispatchers were experiencing discord with other union members and demonstrated a history of discord at the bargaining table. The Association responded that it had effectively balanced the interests of all the bargaining unit members, which included larger raises for the dispatchers and the dispatchers unhappiness that the raises were not even larger was not a valid basis for severance.
In Bellingham, WSCCCE represented the complaints of several non-dues paying members who claimed they were not adequately represented by GPNWE. Non-dues paying members do not have the right to participate in membership meetings and ratification votes while dues-paying members can participate in both.
Director Sellars rejected both petitioners’ claims that member dissatisfaction demanded severance. In Bellingham he reasoned:
“The dissatisfaction appears to have stemmed from the non-dues‑paying members believing that issues were not adequately addressed in the contract negotiations and that the changes in the collective bargaining agreement were targeted at those employees only. The fact that some members of a bargaining unit may have unique issues not shared by others is not a basis for severance.”
In Issaquah,Director Sellars determined that severance would be inappropriate in part because it would create work jurisdiction problems:
“The transfer of the records work creates the work jurisdiction issues. Currently the dispatchers take 911 calls and dispatch police to incidents, but the dispatchers also perform records work. The dispatchers engage in warrant entry work, no-contact orders, citations, and other records work when there is downtime. This work currently remains with the dispatchers but may be transferred back to records employees due to the dispatchers’ current call volumes”
This pair of cases demonstrates how difficult it is to have a successful “severance” petition. PERC case law strongly supports the continuation of existing bargaining unit configurations. Those seeking to sever normally have to show a substantial change of circumstances that demonstrate that the “community of interest” that was previously established has eroded.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Changes in Existing Bargaining Units**
© 2022 Cline & Associates. Any and all text apart from the headnotes belongs entirely to the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission. Cline & Associates disclaims any authorship or rights to said text.
