Washington Labor and Employment Blog
The latest case law and legal developments in Washington labor & employment law.
By Kate Acheson
The Washington State Supreme Court found in Wash. State Nurses Ass’n v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., that employees were inadequately compensated for missing 15-minute breaks mandated by their Collective Bargaining Agreement when they worked over 40 hours in a week, because they were entitled to overtime pay for 10 of those minutes (the state-required break time). [Read more…]
By Kate Acheson
When a heterosexual delivery truck driver sued for being called “Big Gay Al” at work, the Washington State Court of Appeals found, in Davis v. Fred’s Appliance Inc.,that the perception of homosexuality is not protected by Washington’s law against discrimination (“WLAD”), RCW 49.60.
By Kate Acheson
In Kiona Benton School District, Decision 11563 (EDUC, 2012), the union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labor practice, in retaliating against three, school district employees who exercised their statutory right to participate in an earlier PERC ULP proceeding. PERC hearing examiner Steve Irvin concluded that even though the employees had engaged in protected activities and the employer’s layoffs arguably violated the collective bargaining agreement, the union did not carry its burden of proof that the employer actions were pretextual.
By Kate Acheson
In Sterling Savings Bank v. Stanley, a Washington District Court rejected Sterling Bank’s argument that receipt of federal Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, restricts them from making any payment to its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mrs. Heidi Stanley, after her termination. The Court found that TARP was not intended to prevent monetary recovery in discrimination suits like Mrs. Stanley’s.
By Kate Acheson
The Washington State Supreme Court found, in Wash. State Nurses Ass’n v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., that employees were inadequately compensated for missing 15-minute breaks mandated by their Collective Bargaining Agreement because they were entitled to overtime pay for 10 of those minutes (the state-required break time), when they worked over 40 hours in a week.
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.
