By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
In King County, the Public Employment Relations Commission affirmed its Examiner’s prior decision in which King County was found to have discriminated against an employee by removing him from his elected position on a safety committee. The Commission held that even though the County offered a nondiscriminatory reason for its action the Union successfully demonstrated that the County’s actions were merely a pretext for discriminating against the employee due to his advocacy for regular safety committee meetings.
Chuck Lare worked for the King County Metro as a bus driver and was an elected member of the safety committee. This safety committee was mandated by WAC 296-800-13020, and monthly meetings were initiated by the Atlantic Base Chief.
In early 2022, the safety committee did not meet regularly and did not convene until April of that year. Lare contacted the Atlantic Base Chief to resume monthly meetings, which restarted in July after Sidney Richards took over the position. In August, Lare raised concerns about the irregularity of the meetings with Superintendent Aiyana Brown, who was Richard’s superior.
After the next committee election, Richards informed outgoing members that the committee would be reduced in size from seven to five members. On November 3, 2022, Lare emailed Brown, concerned that the employer was interfering with the election in violation of the law. The next day the committee was reduced to three members, leaving Lare, who placed fifth in the election, off the committee. Lare was later voted back on to the committee in November of 2023.
The Union argued that Lare was unlawfully discriminated against for advocating for workplace safety meetings, which constitutes a protected activity. The County argued that it had validly reduced the number of safety committee members to alleviate staffing issues, improve productivity, and conform to the requirements of the safety committee charter, which only required three members.
The Commission noted that while the County presented a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, the reason was “pretextual.” It noted that the safety committee had operated for years with more elected employee representatives than provided for in the safety committee charter. This deviation from past practice was cited as evidence that Lare’s removal from the safety committee was in retaliation for engaging in protected activity.
“The county’s failure to follow its policies and the Examiner’s observation that the reduction did not have a significant impact on staffing lead to a conclusion that the stated reasons were a pretext.”
The Commission affirmed the prior decision that awarded Lare all the lost income from safety committee hours he would have worked from November 2022 to November 2023.
This case demonstrates some of the breadth of what constitutes “protected activity” within the meaning of PECBA prohibition on retaliation. PECBA and other Washington State collective bargaining acts prohibit discrimination against union representatives in engaging in their union related duties. While unions negotiate over “wages, hours, and working conditions” PERC considers many other forms of advocacy inside a traditional union advocacy role to be protected.
Safety committee make up is controlled by L&I safety laws and wouldn’t necessarily fall within the scope of the contract. But participation in a safety committee is certainly a traditional union advocacy role. Here the County’s actions seemed to immediately follow the union rep raising questions about how the meetings were being conducted and demonstrated an intent to retaliate for raising those concerns.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on General Standard for Discrimination, Defenses to Discrimination Charge, and Liability for Back Wages**
