By Christopher Casillas
In State Fish and Wildlife, Decision 11394 (PSRA, 2012), a hearing examiner with PERC recently granted a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of the State finding that it had not committed an unfair labor practice when it unilaterally decreased wages and health insurance premium contributions by 3% for members of the newly certified Fish and Wildlife Officers’ Guild. The case arose under a distinct set of facts, and under even more unique set of laws, applicable only to most State employees, that PERC found to give the State the authority to force the Guild and its members to be bound by a collective bargaining agreement for which it did not participate or agree upon.
Under the statute governing most State workers, RCW 41.80 (as opposed to RCW 41.56 governing most county and city employees), all unions with 500 or fewer employees in their respective bargaining units are required to negotiate one master coalition agreement for all such unions with the State. Likewise, all State employees are part of a master Healthcare coalition agreement with the State controlling, in part, how much in premiums the State pays. Negotiations for a new coalition agreement to take effect July 1, 2011 had commenced back in 2010, but continued into the first part of 2011. The Legislature, however, did not take action to ratify the agreements until late May of 2011, and the bills ratifying the coalition and health care coalition agreements were not signed into law by the Governor until mid-June 2011.
The Enforcement Officers with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, seeking to represent themselves in their own Guild, filed a representation petition with PERC in March of 2011, during the statutory 30 day filing window for such petitions. At the time of the Guild’s petition, the new agreements, which were to take effect on July 1st and mandated the 3% reduction in wages and health insurance premium contributions from the State, had still not been ratified by the State. The Guild was eventually certified by PERC in late June 2011 as the new representative, and approximately one week later, the State imposed the 3% reduction on the Guild’s members even though there was no agreement to do so between the State and the Guild and it represented a change in the status quo.
The hearing examiner found that the unique requirements in RCW Chapter 41.80 meant that the Guild and its members were automatically bound by the master coalition and health care coalition agreements even though the Guild never agreed to these contracts or had any role in negotiating them with the State.
He concluded, “[d]espite not having a part in bargaining either agreement, the Guild became a party to the 2009-2011 Coalition master agreement in effect upon interim certification and the 2011-2013 agreement when it went into effect one week later.”
This case is now on appeal, and we will have to see whether the Commission endorses the hearing examiner’s interpretation of the law at issue. In the meantime, for State employees seeking a more democratic and locally run Guild that would represent a bargaining unit of 500 or fewer employees, you must take heed of this decision. While the state law explicitly allows direct bargaining with the State over “agency-specific issues,” this decision stands for the proposition that your group will automatically be swept up into the master coalition agreement even if your new Guild did not have a hand in negotiating that agreement. For other unionized employees, at the county and city level for example, not subject to this unique statutory scheme, this decision has little impact on your rights in analogous situations.
