By Jim Cline and Abagail Klonsinski
In King County Corrections Guild, Examiner Slone-Gomez dismissed a case after finding a King County Corrections Officer failed to show that his union had breached its duty of fair representation (DFR) by refusing to file a grievance regarding his involuntary separation from the County.
In the ruling, the Examiner found no evidence to support the complainant’s claim that the union had discriminated against him due to his Muslim faith and instead, held that the union fulfilled its obligation despite deciding not to file a grievance.
Ahmed Abdullahi Ahmed worked as a corrections officer for King County when it issued an Executive Order requiring that employees receive full vaccinations against COVID-19 or receive accommodations based on a sincerely held religious belief or a medical disability. Ahmed submitted a request for a religious exemption, which was ultimately denied. Ahmed asked the union to grieve the denial. Instead, Guild President Dennis Folk encouraged Ahmed to participate in a Loudermill hearing, as only after that decision was rendered or the employer moved to sever employment could the Guild Executive Board review the potential grievance. Ahmed submitted a Loudermill Response Form, indicating he would submit a written response and waived his right to attend an in-person hearing.
The employer then imposed an involuntary, non-disciplinary separation. The separation letter stated Ahmed had elected not to participate in a Loudermill hearing. Ahmed complained that the letter was incorrect regarding his Loudermill participation. He asked the union to grieve his matter.
The Guild declined to file a grievance regarding Ahmed’s separation. Ahmed objected to the union’s decision the next day, arguing discrimination based on his religious beliefs. The Guild had also declined to file grievances for a dozen other officers who had asserted religious accommodation requests. Ahmed filed a ULP complaint, alleging the union breached their duty of fair representation.
In the hearing, Ahmed argued extensively that the vaccine mandate was unfair or illegal and that his sincere religious beliefs were not adequately considered by the employer. He further argued that the union discriminated against him due to his Muslim beliefs by failing to file a grievance regarding his involuntary separation.
However, the Guild denied that there had been any question about the sincerity of Ahmed’s religious beliefs. Instead, it demonstrated that a dozen union members of varying religious faiths had been terminated for refusing vaccination, and the union had not filed grievances for any of them. The Guild argued that there was no violation of the collective bargaining agreements and that it would have violated its duty to use dues wisely by filing grievances which were unlikely to succeed.
The Examiner explained the high standard for DFR claims
While an exclusive bargaining representative has the obligation to provide fair representation, the courts have recognized a wide range of flexibility in the standard to allow for union discretion in settling disputes. Allen, 100 Wn.2d at 375. There is no statutory requirement that a union must accomplish the goals of each bargaining unit member, and complete satisfaction of all represented employees is not expected. A union member’s dissatisfaction with the level and skill of representation does not form the basis for a cause of action, unless the member can prove the union violated rights guaranteed in statutes administered by the Commission. Dayton School District (Dayton Education Association), Decision 8042-A (EDUC, 2004).
Ultimately, the Examiner held that Folk had assisted Ahmed by clearly communicating the grievance process and helping Ahmed in securing an extension when one of Ahmed’s family members died. There was no evidence to support Ahmed’s claims that the union failed to file a grievance because of his Muslim religious beliefs. The refusal of the union to file any of the dozen involuntary separation grievances all with different religious beliefs only supported that Ahmed was being treated similarly to other union members. The case was dismissed.
DFR claims are rarely successful. Protected class discrimination allegations could provide a viable basis for a DFR claim. But in this instance, the Guild had uniformly rejected all religious accommodation grievances without regard to any particular religion. Whether the Guild could have taken other legal action was beyond the scope of this ULP. Other King County law enforcement guilds had challenged the legality of the County vaccine mandate and those ULPs are still pending before PERC. The Guild’s decision not to insist on bargaining the mandate in general was not the subject of this ULP claim. While there arguably may have been such a duty, the grievance in this case turned on whether the CBA was violated. Having made a consistent determination that it was not, the Guild decision not to file a grievance was correctly held not to constitute a breach of its Duty of Fair Representation.
