By Jim Cline
In a decision using scorching language in Snohomish County, Examiner Leonard entirely dismissed all 11 claims the Snohomish County Corrections Guild filed against Snohomish County. While the claims varied in issue, Examiner Leonard found that for each allegation, the Guild did not support their claims with sufficient evidence, failing to upload their burden of proof. The Guild’s conduct was characterized as reprehensible by the Examiner as he discussed whether to impose attorney fees for multiple frivolous claims.
The Guild filed 11 claims against Snohomish County, alleging management tried to interfere with the Guild’s internal affairs, that the County unilaterally changed several different mandatory subjects of bargaining, and that the County altered multiple past practices without bargaining. The allegations impacted multiple issues, including shift bidding and meeting scheduling, progressive discipline practices, and uniforms.
For of the many claims, the Guild argued that the County had unilaterally changed a mandatory subject of bargaining, changed a past practice, or refused to bargain. Much of the evidence presented by the Guild was hearsay, which Examiner Leonard found unconvincing. According to Leonard, in none of the alleged claims did the Guild present sufficient evidence to support their allegations.
The County responded to each of the Guild’s accusations, arguing that the changes weren’t mandatory, the practices had been in place and agreed upon by the parties, and that evidence didn’t support the Guild’s conclusions.
Ultimately, Examiner Leonard dismissed each of the 11 claims the Guild filed against the County. The reasonings for the dismissals included lack of sufficient evidence; issues not being mandatory subjects of bargaining, as they did not closely relate to wages, hours, or working conditions; and evidence of the County using past practices which had been agreed upon.
The Examiner then ended the decision with a strong lecture to the Guild to show more care in filing ULP claims. He explained that he had strongly considered whether to grant the County request for attorney fees.
The reckless complaint here almost created a bad precedent for all labor unions. There is no case law or statutory support for the imposition of attorney fees brought by complainants. But “bad facts make bad law” and the facts of the union’s conduct here was bad. It’s clear that the complaint was brought with little preparation or evidence. The Guild officers that had apparently instigated the hearing were unable to describe many basic facts about the established practice or offer documents to support their claims.
It is better to see the Examiner’s threat here as targeted at this Guild and not an indication that PERC any time soon will allow fees to be imposed against complaining unions. There is no statutory authority for such an action, and it would almost certainly be reversed. Hopefully a lesson was learned here.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Discharge, Discipline and Demotion, Refusal to Bargain and Unilateral changes in Mandatory Subject of Bargaining**
