By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In, Nathaniel Bickley v. Snohomish County Corrections Guild, the PERC Examiner dismissed a complaint that alleged the Guild breached its duty of fair representation by failing to provide representation to a bargaining unit member during a disciplinary hearing and grievance proceeding. The Examiner concluded that the complaining employee failed to ever seek assistance and even expressly refused assistance at several points.
Nathaniel Bickley, a Snohomish County corrections deputy, received an email notice of a work-related complaint which directed him to attend an investigation meeting. Bickley forwarded an email to the Guild, but offered no other context and did not ask for assistance. Bickley was directed to attend a second investigatory meeting. He also forwarded this email notice to the Guild but expressly stated, “This is not a request for assistance.”
Despite Bickley’s express statement, the Guild offered him advice about preparing for the meeting and asked if Bickley wanted a Union representative present. Bickley informed the Guild that a non-union member of the bargaining unit would accompany him. At Bickley’s Loudermill hearing, a Union representative was waiting outside of the meeting room in case Bickley changed his mind. Bickley expressly refused the union representation at the at his Loudermill hearing.
Bickley claimed that the union refused to assist him until he paid off his outstanding union fees from his time on extended military leave. The hearing Examiner was unconvinced that this conversation ever occurred. The Examiner found Bickley to be an uncredible witness, stating,
“During his testimony throughout the hearing, Bickley regularly could not remember important details such as dates of conversations, whether emails were sent, or whether certain conversations even took place. Additionally, at no point did the union ask Bickley to pay the $3,700 as a lump sum but rather always sought reimbursement through monthly payments spread out over several years through a payroll deduction authorization form.”
Bickley offered no other evidence to back up his claims. Therefore, the Examiner dismissed his complaint alleging that the Guild breached their duty of fair representation.
In this situation, the Guild insisted that the employee pay dues covering the time of his military leave and that led to a dispute over whether he was in good standing. The written decision suggests that there were communication breakdowns at several turns between this employee and the Guild and the Guild’s “standby” posture seems a bit confusing.
The issue of charging dues as a condition of representation is likely to be an ongoing issue one in this post Janus era. It is important that your Guild establishes and administers clear bylaw requirements for these situations. If you are denying representation, it must be grounded in your bylaws and the communications over it should be clear and in writing. In this case, it is unclear why the Guild was charging back dues for the time the officer was on military leave but that seems to be something they were insisting upon.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Duty of Fair Representation**
