Washington Labor and Employment Blog
The latest case law and legal developments in Washington labor & employment law.
By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
In Arlington School District, the PERC Examiner found that the District had violated its duty to bargain and had skimmed bargaining unit work from the ironically named Arlington Non-Rep Group (NRG). The school district did not believe the NRG was a union, but prior practice demonstrated that the District had historically voluntarily recognized the NRG as a bargaining unit and thus violated its duty to bargain.
By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
In King County, Examiner Willaford determined that the Union successfully proved the County violated its duty to bargain by making mandatory overtime a condition of employment. The Examiner ruled that King County’s practice of medically separating corrections officers with medical restrictions on working overtime was a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining.
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.
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.
By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
In University of Washington, Examiner Bradley ruled that University of Washington (UW) changing bargaining unit employees’ overtime eligibility status to comply with Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) rules was not a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining.
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In City of Grand Coulee, PERC dismissed a representation petition that requested to separate City police officers from the city-wide bargaining unit and place them into their own police only bargaining unit. (Grand Coulee’s population is less than the 2500 that would make that interest arbitration eligible.) PERC reasoned that severance from the bargaining unit was not appropriate when police officers still shared a community interest with other City employees and there was a long history of the bargaining unit successfully negotiating on behalf of police officers.
Police officers of Grand Coulee have been represented by a city-wide bargaining unit, Teamster Local 760, for over 40 years. In addition to police officers, Teamster Local 760 represents utility workers, treatment plant operators, assistant clerks, laborers, and all other employees who provide services to the City and Grand Coulee Dam. The Grand Coulee Police Officers Association became dissatisfied with Teamster Local 760 after a grievance related to working hours and conditions resulted in an unfavorable outcome. The Association then filed a petition to become the exclusive bargaining unit of police officers in the City of Grand Coulee.
The Examiner first noted that a city-wide, “wall-to-wall” bargaining unit is typically thought of as appropriate, if not the most appropriate bargaining unit structure for employees operating in a small city centered around a single utility facility. Further, the Examiner noted that a disruption to a long-standing structure would have to have a compelling justification. Severance would only be appropriate if the Association could show either a lack of community interest or that the bargaining unit lacks the ability to adequately represent police officers.
While police officers are the only employees that provide law enforcement services, this by itself does not mean that a shared community interest does not exists. Nothing in the record showed a change in circumstances that affected the long-existing shared community interest. In considering the bargaining unit’s ability to represent the police officers, the Examiner concluded that,
“Nothing in this record demonstrates that the Teamsters lack the ability to successfully negotiate a collective bargaining agreement on behalf of Police Officers and the remaining bargaining unit. While there may have been some dissatisfaction with the outcome of a particular bargaining subject, this does not indicate the Teamsters were not able to negotiate on the Police Officer’s behalf.”
Thus, the Examiner dismissed the petition because the Association failed to give a compelling justification for why severance of the bargaining unit was appropriate.
As much as the officers were unhappy with the Teamsters this is a very predictable outcome. PERC has repeatedly denied the ability of law enforcement in non-IA groups to sever from wall-to-wall City or County bargaining units. This issue only arises in Cities with less than 2500 in population and Counties with less than 10,000. Typically, the work forces of those governments are small and a single bargaining unit may represent all union employees.
The officers’ claims that the Teamsters were ineffective was somewhat factually plausible but not legally compelling under PERC’s standards. PERC has rarely granted severance solely on ineffective representation claims. The officers would have to prove that they, more or less, had been completely excluded from the contract negotiations process. In this case, the Teamsters did not consult with the officers and entered a careless MOU that degraded their work schedule. Their frustration with bad representation did not convince PERC that they had had no representation.
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In, Nathaniel Bickley v. Snohomish County Corrections Guild, the PERC Examiner dismissed a complaint that alleged the Guild breached its duty of fair representation by failing to provide representation to a bargaining unit member during a disciplinary hearing and grievance proceeding. The Examiner concluded that the complaining employee failed to ever seek assistance and even expressly refused assistance at several points.
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In Tiffany Diggins v. Seattle Housing Authority, a PERC Examiner ruled that the complaining employee failed to prove employer discrimination when she alleged that her employer interfered with her connectivity and access to computer software required for work. The Examiner held that her IT access issues did not rise to the level of being an “adverse action” upon which a discrimination charge could be based.
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In Walla Walla Community College, a PERC Examiner ruled that a college administrator was to be excluded from the bargaining unit representing rank and file higher education staff. The Examiner held that although the administrative employee had in the past done fill-in work for staff, the employee was still exempt from the bargaining unit because of her primary function as an administrator.
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, a PERC Examiner dismissed a complaint alleging AFSCME breach of its duty of fair representation (DFR) when failed to facilitate a request for information. The Examiner reasoned that the failure was due to a mistake in interpreting the nature of the request, as thus, was mere negligence and not unlawful union interference.
