Washington Labor and Employment Blog
The latest case law and legal developments in Washington labor & employment law.
By Therese Norton
In Lake Washington School District, Examiner Page A. Garcia dismissed the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 46’s skimming complaint as untimely under Chapter 41.56 RCW. The examiner concluded that the District provided “clear and unequivocal notice” to IBEW Local 46 in a letter to the union’s business representative, which falls outside of the six-month statute of limitations. Lake Washington School District, Decision 11913 (PECB, 2013)
By Therese Norton
In a re
cent decision, PERC Hearing Examiner Robin A. Romeo dismissed an interference complaint brought by some state community colleges against the Washington Public Employees Association (WPEA). Bellevue Community College, Decision 11469-A (PSRA, 2013). The community college employers alleged that WPEA had interfered with its right to select its bargaining representative, a multi-college coalition representative called the Labor Relations Office (LRO). They alleged WPEA committed an unfair labor practice when it communicated directly with the employer and attempted to sever the relationship between the colleges and the LRO. Examiner Romeo looked at the specific language of the Personnel System Reform Act of 2002 (the law covering collective bargaining for most Washington State government employees) and concluded, “Nowhere in the statute does it state that it is an unfair labor practice for an employee organization to interfere with or discourage an employer in its choice of representative.”
By Anthony Rice
In Pacific County, Arbitrator Guy Coss (PERC staff examiner assigned to arbitrate) found the County lacked just cause for suspending a sheriff’s deputy since the County failed to consider mitigating factors in a dog bite case. [Read more…]
By Therese Norton
In a recent decision, the Washington Court of Appeals reinforced the fundamental right state employees have in Washington “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” and not one unilaterally imposed by the employer. Division One Court of Appeals affirmed the Public Employee Relations Commission’s ruling that the University of Washington committed an unfair labor practice when it insisted on moving a group of hospital employees to a bargaining unit represented by a different union as a condition of reallocating them to a position with a higher pay grade.
By Therese Norton
In a recent decision, PERC Hearing Examiner Page A. Garcia held that the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots union provided employees with adequate notice and opportunity to vote on the ratification of tentative agreements the union had negotiated with the Washington State Ferries. Washington State Ferries, Decision 11899 (MRNE, 2013).
By Jim Cline
Pending in the Court of Appeals, the August ruling by Pierce County Judge James Orlando, holding that an interest arbitration order by Arbitrator Howell Lankford that Kitsap County Deputies incur a retroactive increase in their insurance premiums, was unconstitutional and unlawful. Earlier this month, we discussed the detailed legal theories involved in Orlando’s ruling. But, a new question concerning the scope of bargaining under PERC law is raised by Orlando’s ruling: if a retroactive change in health insurance premiums or benefits is unconstitutional or unlawful, does that remove it from the scope of bargaining?
By Jim Cline
Several weeks ago, we published an article on the decision of Pierce County Judge James Orlando to strike the retroactive increase in the Kitsap deputies’ insurance premiums that had been ordered by interest arbitrator Howell Lankford. Because this article seems to have sparked quite a bit of interest, I decided it was worth taking some time to explain the issues and the court’s reasoning in greater detail. Although the County has appealed this decision, and, therefore, an appellate court could modify this result, at the current time, labor unions seeking to resist retroactive changes in their health insurance have a strong argument to present simply by citing to Judge Orlando’s ruling.
By Therese Norton
I
n Washington State University, the Public Employment Relations Commission upheld an appeal by a union that WSU committed an unfair labor practice, reversing the Hearing Examiner. The union alleged that WSU unlawfully contracted out a roof repair project and breached its good faith bargaining obligation in the manner in which the employer invoked a contractual time limit for bargaining. With one Commissioner absent, the divided remaining two commissioners were split on the “skimming” charge, so the Examiner decision that no skimming occurred stands. But, the Commission determined that 13 other pending bargaining demands were improperly ignored by WSU.
By Therese Norton
The Public Employment Relations Commission recently affirmed Examiner Romeo’s ruling that Washington State University (WSU) refused to bargain with the Public School Employees of Washington union when it failed to bargain an increase in employees’ workloads caused by a layoff. Washington State University, Decision 11704-A (PSRA 2013).
By Therese Norton
In Port of Seattle, Hearing Examiner Emily Martin found that the Port did not discriminate against Officer Brian Torre, the Shop Steward for the Teamsters Local 117 Commissioned Officers Bargaining Unit. Although Officer Torre was engaged in protected activity by serving as a shop steward, the union member could not show that he was “deprived of an ascertainable right or benefit” when the Port’s sole adverse action was to “coach” him on “providing better customer service.” Examiner Martin also found criticism of Officer Torre by Commander Jon Hornbuckle, who was also a Teamster shop steward for the supervisor’s unit, did not constitute unlawful interference.
