August 16, 2012 by

Commission Upholds Hearing Examiner’s Decision that “Extenuating” Circumstances Justified an Employer’s Decision to Exclude an Employee’s First Choice of a Union Representative

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…]

Filed Under: Weingarten Rights
August 9, 2012 by

Hearing Examiner Rules that Enumerated Rights in Collective Bargaining are Permissive Subjects of Bargaining

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…]

Filed Under: _
August 9, 2012 by

Commission Asserts Jurisdiction Over a Police Officer’s Claim that Her Union Interfered with Her Rights by Failing to File a Grievance

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…]

Filed Under: Representation and Unit Determination
August 8, 2012 by

Commission Vacates an Election Because the Notice of Election Misidentified the Employer

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…]

Filed Under: Representation and Unit Determination
August 7, 2012 by

Kitsap Transit Earns Strong Rebuke from PERC for Unilaterally Dropping Health Plan

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.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
August 7, 2012 by

PERC: State Can Unilaterally Change Wages & Benefits for New Guild

By Christopher Casillas

In State Fish and Wildlife, Decision 11394 (PSRA, 2012), a hearing examiner with PERC recently granted a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of the State finding that it had not committed an unfair labor practice when it unilaterally decreased wages and health insurance premium contributions by 3% for members of the newly certified Fish and Wildlife Officers’ Guild. The case arose under a distinct set of facts, and under even more unique set of laws, applicable only to most State employees, that PERC found to give the State the authority to force the Guild and its members to be bound by a collective bargaining agreement for which it did not participate or agree upon. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
August 1, 2012 by

Washington Supreme Court Announces New Test for Deciding Independent Contractor/Employee Status

By Cynthia McNabb

Workers in Washington State, currently classified by their employer’s as “independent contractors” should be aware that the Washington Supreme Court has recently ruled that some of these workers may actually be “employees” under the Washington Minimum Wage Act and thus entitled to minimum wage and overtime benefits. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases
July 31, 2012 by

Ninth Circuit Reaffirms First Amendment Right of Public Employees to be Free of Retaliation

By Mitchell Riese

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified the rights that public employees have to not be retaliated against by a supervisor for testifying in a deposition in the context of a civil rights lawsuit. In the case of Karl v. City of Mountlake  Terrace, Martha Karl  filed suit against the City of Mountlake Terrace and Assistant Chief of Police Pete Caw.  Karl was the Confidential Administrative Assistant to the Chief of Police. In 2008, she was subpoenaed to give deposition testimony in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by former department Sgt. Jonathan Wender.  Wender had brought a lawsuit claiming that he had been fired because of his outspoken criticism of the “war on drugs.” During her deposition, Karl testified that the chief and assistant chief disapproved of Wender’s comments to the press and his outspoken views on the need for drug policy reform, and that Caw had urged the Chief to terminate Wender. Karl also testified that Wender had a reputation for honesty, the chief had a reputation for being dishonest, and Caw had a reputation as a “smooth talker” and “back stabber.” After Karl’s deposition, Caw was allegedly overheard saying that the police department would have to find a way to the “get rid of her.” [Read more…]

Filed Under: Discrimination and Retaliation, Free Speech Rights
« Previous Page