Washington Labor and Employment Blog
The latest case law and legal developments in Washington labor & employment law.
By Jim Cline
The recent ruling of the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Scavone v. Pennsylvania State Police), governing preemployment tattoo policies, addresses some interesting issues and is explained in a recent blog article. Our readers should be aware, that these issues are not controlling, or in any way dispositive of employers separate obligations under collective bargaining laws.
By Kate Acheson
In Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, an asbestos office program coordinator at the University of Washington, Debra Loeffelholz, alleged that James Lukehart, her supervisor from 2003 to early 2006, discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. Loeffelholz claimed the sexual-orientation-based discrimination created a hostile work environment. Upon review, the State Supreme Court found that Loeffelholz’s claims before the enactment of the amendment adding sexual orientation as a protected class in Washington were unrecoverable because the amendment is not retroactive. However, the Court also found that a jury must resolve the questions of fact arising from the last, potentially post-amendment incident.
By Rick Gautschi
In Watson v. Providence St. Peter Hospital, 193 LRRM 3056, No. C12-5352 BHS, July 18, 2012, W.D. Wa., during March 2012, Carroll Watson (Ms. Watson) filed a complaint in Thurston County, WA, Superior Court against Providence St. Peter Hospital and several agents of the hospital (Providence St. Peter). Although she set forth eight separate claims in the complaint, all eight derived from her allegation that the defendants had denied her meal and rest breaks to which she was entitled. She contended that the denial meant that for extended periods, she had to continue working while she was seated in her own human waste. As a result of doing so, she suffered injuries for which she sought redress. Soon after Ms. Watson filed the complaint, Providence St. Peter, citing the Labor Management Relations Act’s (LMRA’s) provision that confers original jurisdiction over claims that arise out of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), removed the case to federal court. Subsequently, Ms. Watson moved to have the federal court remand the case back to Thurston County Superior Court on the ground that her claims did not require interpretation of provisions in a CBA.
By Rick Gautschi
In Central Washington University, Decision 10967-A (PECB, 2012) during May 2009, the employer indicated that it was considering making changes to the hours of work of certain employees. In October 2009, the union filed a representation petition to include those employees in a bargaining unit. In early May 2010, PERC’s Executive Director dismissed the petition. The following day, the union appealed the dismissal to the Commission and gave notice of the appeal to the employer. Later the same month, the employer announced its decision to reduce the work hours of the employees who were the subject of the representation petition. On June 3, 2010, the union filed an unfair labor practice complaint, alleging that the employer had failed to preserve the status quo and in doing so had unlawfully interfered with the employees’ rights. The following day, the union withdrew its appeal.
By Rick Gautschi
In University of Washington, Decision 11414 (PSRA, 2012), the University of Washington’s Harborview Medical Center, operated a Patient Access Center (PAC). Employees in the PAC were part of a collective bargaining unit. In 2010, the employer decided to consolidate the operations of the PAC with another unit, into a new Contact Center (CC). Subsequently, the employer informed the PAC’s employees they would have to apply for positions in the CC and would not be part of the bargaining unit. Later, the union filed a unit clarification petition and an unfair labor practice complaint alleging that employer had committed refusal to bargain and interference violations by consolidating the PAC functions into the CC because the employees who performed the functions that were previously performed by employees in the PAC would not be part of the bargaining unit. The clarification petition was held in abeyance pending the outcome on the unfair labor practice complaint. In 2011, the union made a demand to bargain and sent the employer a request for information about changes to the hours of operation and employee schedules at the CC. Subsequently, the union reiterated its demand to bargain and reminded the employer of the request for information. Over a period of approximately six months the union made six demands to bargain and four requests for information. During that period, a hearing examiner ruled that the employer did not have to bargain the decision to consolidate operations, but it did have a duty to bargain the effects of the consolidation. Regardless, the employer refused to bargain and to provide information to the union. In the employer’s view the decision was of no effect because the employer had appealed the decision to the Commission.
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Tacoma, Decision 11064-A (PECB, 2012), An employer police department, contracted with another police department, to investigate an allegation that one of the employer’s police officers had threatened to kill his wife, another police officer with whom the first officer was allegedly having an affair, and himself. The investigation identified as a material witness, another of the employer police department’s officers. The employer summoned the officer, who allegedly made the threats to an investigatory meeting. [Read more…]
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Bellevue, Decision 11435 (PECB, 2012) the union alleged that the employer had committed two unfair labor practices in the collective bargaining process. First, the employer proposed maintaining a “management rights” provision that listed enumerated rights in the existing collective bargaining agreement. When the union proposed deleting the provision, over the union’s objection, the employer insisted on including the provision and on certifying the enumerated items to interest arbitration. Second, the employer bargained to impasse and sought interest arbitration of an attorneys’ fees provision in existing grievance procedure language.
[Read more…]
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Seattle (Seattle Police Officers’ Guild), Decision 11291-A (PECB, 2012), a police officer alleged that the employer subjected her to retaliation, discrimination, and a hostile work environment, and that the employer took no action regarding those conditions. Further, she asserted that because it claimed that there was a perceived conflict of interest between the officer and her ex-husband union member, her union failed to file a grievance on her behalf to address the employer’s inaction. In addition, she asserted that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith in declining to file a grievance on her behalf. [Read more…]
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Seattle, Decision 11413 (PECB, 2012), a union filed a petition seeking to include a group of unrepresented employees of the City of Seattle in an existing bargaining unit. Subsequently, a mail ballot election occurred, the result of which was conclusive in favor of the union. Two eligible voters filed timely election objections. Only one of the objectors voted in the election. The non-voting objector claimed that the ballot was for King County. [Read more…]
By Christopher Casillas
A PERC hearing examiner recently levied a significant financial penalty against Kitsap Transit for unilaterally dropping one of two health insurance plans offered to members of two different bargaining units of drivers for the agency represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union (“ATU”), Local 1384. The case, Kitsap Transit, Decision 11098-A (PECB, 2012) arose back in late 2010 when Kitsap Transit notified ATU, with just a few weeks warning, that it was no longer going to offer one of two insurance plans historically available to the members—the Premera PPO Plan—and that all the members would have to move over to the Group Health Plan. The loss in the plan was a significant reduction in benefits for the group as a whole, as around 50% of the membership was signed up under the PPO plan, which many members strongly preferred over the HMO product offered through Group Health.
