By Jim Cline & Peter Haller
In Bethel School District, Examiner Whitney partially dismissed a complaint that alleged that the Employer had engaged in direct dealing even though it had directly proposed a plan to employees without union representation present and misreported the status of the meetings to the union.
The Employer was dealing with a critical bus driver shortage and intended to propose a plan to address this shortage at the monthly meeting. The monthly meeting is usually attended by Union reps. However, the Employer told the Union reps that the meeting that month would not occur. It never gave the Union notice of their intent to forward the proposal directly to the employees with the union absent.
Examiner Whitney noted that the complaint merely alleges that the employer shared a proposed plan with the bargaining unit employees. Examiner Whitney reasoned that,
“Sharing information or listening to employee concerns does not rise to the level of circumnavigation [direct dealing].”
Therefore, Examiner Whitney concluded that the complaint lacked sufficient facts to support the allegation of direct dealing and dismissed that specific allegation.
PERC cases on direct dealing have not been consistent and sometimes haven’t made too much sense. This case clearly needs to be appealed. Even given the confusion that has existed in PERC doctrine on direct dealing, this case seems to be outside the limits of acceptable employer conduct.
The law requires employers to bargain in good faith with the designated bargaining agent. In the past, the Commission has ruled that an employer commits a ULP when it first presents a proposal to the employees bypassing the union. But that’s exactly what was alleged here. It is hard to understand why this wouldn’t amount to a ULP even before you consider the deception that appears to be involved in cancelling a meeting and then proceeding without the union present.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Circumnavigation and Direct Communication**
