By Chris Casillas and Jordan L. Jones
In Spokane County, PERC Examiner Dianne Ramerman held that Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich did not interfere nor dominate or assist the Spokane County Deputy Sheriff’s Association when he sent an e-mail to the Union.
In this case, a reporter with Spokane’s KREM-TV “received an anonymous tip that [deputies] . . . had applied to the [Spokane Police Department] . . . due to the leadership in the Sheriff’s Office.” The reporter subsequently interviewed Sheriff Knezovich and published an article online. The reporter quoted Sheriff Knezovich as stating that the deputies’ lateral transfer came down to numbers; that a given deputy’s pay topped out about $11,000 less than a SPD police officer would and that one of his deputies had approached him earlier to explain that SPD officers could earn $500,000 more over the course of their career. Sheriff Knezovich was also quoted as saying that the transfers could have something to do with on-going contract negotiations and stated that the Employer had filed a ULP complaint against the Union for regressive bargaining.
In response, Union President Wally Loucks wrote an online comment to the KREM.com article where he disclosed his identity as Union President. President Locuks wanted to “accurately portray the reasons for those individuals [which included himself for] applying [to SPD].” President Loucks stated in his comment that “the information . . . attributed to Sheriff Knezovich . . . is woefully misleading [and that] the truthful [deputy] salary would be $72,500, not the stated amount of 65,316 [and therefore] . . . the divide isn’t as profound as the author was led to believe.” In addition, President Loucks explained that the decision of the six deputies to transfer laterally to SPD had nothing to do with the November 1, 2013, ULP complaint, because the lateral paperwork was filed with SPD a month earlier. President Loucks noted that “I would recommend more than one source if you’re going to publish an article suggesting to the public that veteran law enforcement officers are migrating away from an agency due merely to compensation.”
After reading the Union President’s online comment, Sheriff Knezovich sent an e-mail to President Loucks and copied the 12 executive Union board members, as well as the Employer’s attorney. Sheriff Knezovich stated that he wanted to provide proper context to the reporter’s article and noted that “[w]hen asked about the salary issue I requested Deputy Chamberlin to contact both our payroll office and the [SPD] to get the base wage for top step Deputy and Officer respectively . . . . Both numbers were conveyed to the reporter.” Sheriff Knezovich then stated that “[i]n your ever present zeal to paint me and my administration in a negative light, you claimed that the numbers were misleading . . . [but] those were the numbers presented by the [SPD] in response to a request for their top step base wage.” Sheriff Knezovich also stated that he was not tying the “ULP filed against you with the fact that [the employer’s] personnel are applying to SPD. No such reference was ever made and it appears you were grasping at straws . . . .” Lastly, Sheriff Knezovich stated that:
You also imply that [the employer’s] personnel are not leaving due to the money and increased benefits. I find this confusing since I have personally talked with one of your deputies who has applied to the SPD . . . . Your post has become one of the [employer’s] biggest exhibits as to wages and benefits not being that big of a difference when compared to comparable agencies.
The Union then filed a ULP complaint against Spokane County. President Loucks testified that the Sheriff’s email was “another attempt to make me appear incompetent as far as bargaining in the best interests of my membership, perhaps sabotaging our ability to secure higher wages.”
Examiner Ramerman held that “looking at the totality of the circumstances, the types of comments contained in the . . . email contain the types of comments that [PERC] . . . has asserted require experienced labor representatives to have “thicker skin.” Examiner Ramerman explained that under the “thicker skin” principal, “[t]he longer a union official is involved in representing the interest of bargaining unit employees, the less reasonable are their claimed perceptions of threats and coercion.” Examiner Ramerman stated that the comments in the email were not threats or coercion, but were frank and candid statements that reflected frustration within the context of that contentious relationship.
Examiner Ramerman pointed out that in one PERC decision, the Commission held that the Governor’s statement at the bargaining table that she would see how the supplemental bargaining progressed was not a threat. The Commission held that in context the Governor’s statement “could not reasonably be perceived as a threat as the [U]nion sought out the [E]mployer to air frustrations, and the comments were not coercive”; that there were experienced negotiators on both sides of the bargaining table who were merely “expressing frustration” at the process.
In another PERC decision, Examiner Ramerman noted that the Commission held that a police chief’s comments that the Union President was “non-supportive” and “non-positive” were not coercive given that Union officials were accustomed to controversial situations and could expect to receive frank discussions.
Examiner Ramerman also held that the “union did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, based on totality of the circumstances, the employer dominated or assisted the union by intentionally interfering and involving itself in the internal affairs of the union.”
Examiner Ramerman held that Spokane County did not interfere with employee rights nor dominate or assist the Union in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and (2).
The “thicker skin” principle has been applied by PERC in past interference cases, and its discussion herein was likely appropriate. However, the application of that principle by the Examiner is certainly debatable and may be challenged on appeal. In the prior PERC cases cited by the Examiner, the relevant comments were made in the context of negotiation sessions or private labor-management meetings where some frustrations were being expressed by the parties. In such a context, it is more understandable that a “thicker skin” may be warranted in those types of interactions, which can be inherently contentious but not broadcast to a wider audience. In this situation, however, the Sheriff had chosen to make very public comments about contract negotiations and ULPs to a local television station and then followed that up with an email to the entire executive board. A heated comment in the context of contentious labor contract negotiations or during a private meeting is one thing, but these very public and widely disseminated comments by the Sheriff occurred in a very different context. Even a seasoned-veteran of a union could feel threatened when the employer chooses to make comments like this in such a public fashion.
