By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
In Okanogan County, Examiner Todd ruled that the County refused to bargain when it unilaterally contracted out bargaining unit work to third-party security contractors after making the representation that it was rescinding its proposal to reclassify a then-vacant bargaining unit position.
The Okanogan County Sheriffs Employees’ Association is the exclusive bargaining unit representative for non-commissioned corrections deputies working for the County. Beginning in 2014, certain members of the bargaining unit were granted a limited commission and assigned to be a courthouse security officer for the Okanogan Courthouse building.
For many years, uncompetitive wages led to perpetually low staffing levels in the jail. In fact, it was a running joke among the corrections deputies that they could make more money working down the street at the local Walmart. These minimum staffing levels meant that the courthouse security officer would often be pulled back to work in the jail, leaving the courthouse security position vacant.
The County initially sought to solve this issue by creating a stand-alone courthouse security position. In the Spring of 2022, the County proposed this new reclassified position to the Union. The parties met two times to negotiate, and during the second meeting, the Union presented its wage proposal. The County briefly caucused, and upon their return to the room abruptly stormed out, informing the Union that it was rescinding its proposal.
The Union assumed that the County no longer planned to create a new position, and that the status quo would remain. However, approximately 9 months later the County contracted the position out to private security. The Union was kept completely in the dark about this until an email was sent to all corrections staff announcing that private security would begin training the next week.
During an unfair labor practice hearing, testimony from both County and Union witnesses was heard regarding the negotiation meetings and following events. The Examiner found the County’s witnesses lacked credibility as compared to the Union’s witnesses, and thus the Union’s recollection of the events was accepted as truth.
The Examiner concluded that the private contractors were doing the same work that members of the bargaining unit had done, and despite the position’s vacancies, the work always remained bargaining unit work. Thus, the County had a duty to bargain, which it utterly failed to comply with when it secretly contracted out the work without giving the Union notice until the change came into effect – fiat accompli.
Additionally, the Examiner noted that the County’s argument that the bargaining unit waived its right to bargain was “nonsensical,” reasoning that the County had ample opportunity to make the union aware of its plans. The Examiner’s decision is best summed up with the following quote:
“For nine months the employer did not attempt to meet with the union. The county did not engage in good faith bargaining; rather, it proverbially picked up its toys and went home when the union did not agree on what the county believed were the position’s comparable wages…”
Ultimately, the Examiner ordered that the work be returned to the bargaining unit and that members of the bargaining unit be made whole through back pay and benefits, including overtime, for all the hours worked by the private security contractors.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Contracting Out/Skimming, Bad Faith Bargaining Process, Waiver Defense and Attorney Fees**
