The Duty to Bargain and other Legal Issues Surrounding Mandatory Vaccine Orders

By: Jim Cline

One of the emerging issues, at least in some departments is whether the employer can mandate that employees be vaccinated.   If so, what are the legal rules and requirements around that issue? [Read more…]

How an Employers’ “Emergency” Claims are Viewed by Arbitrators

By Jim Cline

In our last newsletter, we addressed the subject of employer unilateral changes and how PERC viewed management’s ability to evade bargaining by claiming emergencies. In this article, we address the closely related subject of how emergencies impact your labor contract and how arbitrator’s view these defenses.

Given the operational issues and disruption caused by COVID-19 and related events, it’s very possible your employer may attempt to claim that one or more CBA provisions may be bypassed to address a perceived “emergency.”  We’ve carefully reviewed past arbitration decisions on the subject of “emergency” and summarize our evaluation here. For a more complete evaluation, our Associate Shanleigh Kennedy has prepared an excellent detailed summary of emergency defense arbitration case law. For this article, we’ll give you a summary of what that case law suggests.

Our review indicates that it’s hard to draw hard and fast conclusions about whether or how an employer can invoke an “emergency” claim to deviate from CBA terms.  What is clear is that arbitrators do recognize the existence of an emergency defense, as does PERC, which we discussed above. It is also fairly clear that arbitrators could find that COVID-19 created operational issues do give rise to a valid emergency claim. But what is unclear is how that may be invoked as to any particular provision in your CBA.

Arbitration case law suggests that emergencies include inclement weather (but not always), an unforeseen combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action, strikes, power outages, water main breaks/contamination (like the camp lejeune water contamination lawsuit), and in one case, slumping sales.  There are no cases covering pandemics but it’s a reasonable extension of these examples to conclude that a pandemic could be considered a bona fide emergency.  They fully expect that once this pandemic is over, they’ll see a series of cases on the topic, not really in time to provide clear guidance.

Once an emergency is identified, how broad of authority does that give management to override the terms of your existing CBA?  The leading arbitration treatise Elkouri and Elkouri on How Arbitration works explains:

Managerial freedom to act may be expanded and managerial obligations may be narrowed if management’s performance is affected by an emergency, an act of God, or a condition beyond the control of management. The collective bargaining agreement may expressly provide exceptions for these situations, or an arbitrator may hold such exceptions to be inherent and necessarily implied.

An overarching point is that actions taken by management to address an emergency should be related to the emergency, and context specific. Simply saying an emergency exists, does not given the employer the right to shred the contract. Instead, emergencies may expand management’s rights to make short term unilateral changes, but the contract always remains in force and can be applied to restrict management’s unilateral actions.

The case law seems to suggest that employers may have the greatest discretion in the area of changing job assignments, and perhaps even reassigning work across bargaining unit boundaries. As one decision held, “when a bona fide emergency occurs the Employer has the right to call out whichever employees it feels are necessary to correct the situation or to reschedule employees as it feels is necessary.”

Beyond reassigning duties, an emergency could be found to provide an employer with a window to change work schedules. As one decision held, “when a bona fide emergency occurs the Employer has the right to call out whichever employees it feels are necessary to correct the situation or to reschedule employees as it feels is necessary.”

It’s more than possible your employer may seek some change in your work schedule.  Whether they can do this unilaterally, is uncertain as the previous discussion suggests. Some other principles come into play, including an aversion by arbitrators to  allow changes that seem simply designed to avoid overtime.  And the obligations under the FLSA to pay time and one half the regular rate certainly cannot be evaded.

Many contracts contain provisions that allow for employers to cancel approved employee leave under certain circumstances, and the COVID-19 pandemic would likely qualify as such a circumstance. Most travel has been halted as it is, but this is still anticipated to be a major issue between bargaining units and employers as the required response to COVID-19, especially if the available employee pool dips at any point due to department-infection.

If the CBA (or practice) does not provide for the cancellation of established vacations, can the employer cancel? That remains an open question. An employer will assert the emergency defense but it’s unclear that, absent clear contract language to be revoked, that the employer can unilaterally cancel leave. The union argument against this is that if the shift can be covered by overtime, there’s no need to cancel leave. Another complication is that prescheduled vacation generally reflects seniority-based bidding and disruption of that time off interferes with the bidding process.

Most contracts have some sort of notice requirement related to policy changes. For example: “the Department will provide the Guild with notification of any planned changes within X days of the implementation of the desired change”.  It’s possible, in fact, probable, that COVD-19 will present operational issues leading your employer to want to change policies.  You will want to be mindful of your rights to negotiate those changes, and that will include following any provision in your CBA as to the duty to demand bargaining on a timely basis. Some contracts require notice on any policy change while other contracts limit the notice to only topics that involve mandatory subjects of bargaining. In the latter event, you’ll want to inform yourself of the broad scope of collective bargaining which our Subjects of Bargaining table identifies.

Assigning additional responsibilities to employees as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic likely requires advance notice and could open the duty to bargain the changes (or the effects thereof). It’s also possible the agency may seek to contract out some functions or assign them to other bargaining units. Either of these actions would if an employer is unwilling to do so, it opens up the employer to face a potential grievance (or ULP) if employee responsibilities are changed. Some contracts contain “emergency situations” language, but that may be a gray area and would not definitively prohibit the filing of a grievance. As discussed above, some arbitrators have found some significant authority for employers to reassign duties during an emergency. Again, everything is context specific.

This article isn’t able to indicate more clear-cut guidance because this situation simply isn’t clear-cut. It will depend on your CBA language, past practices, and, as we’ve stressed, the judgment has to be context specific.  If faced with emergency claims, it’s likely you’ll want to seek legal advice.

COVID-19 and Management’s Right to Claim “Emergencies”

By Jim Cline

COVID-19 is creating significant operational issues and the related economic downturn is creating financial issues. COVID-19 also drove further usage of digital payments during the pandemic. For small businesses today, having access to the cheapest card machine is crucial for growth and success. Consider seeking company insolvency register uk services if you need to liquidate your company assets to pay off the debts that you accumulated during the pandemic.

An important question many are wondering is whether or when these developments can trump the right of labor organizations to maintain existing working conditions or labor contract protections. Those rights are essentially protected by two different sets of rights, which overlap to a certain extent:  the terms of your CBA and the statutory right to maintain existing practices. The existence of a claimed emergency might impact those rights, but different considerations arise under the PERC regulated right to bargain and the arbitrator enforced rights under your labor contract.

So, we’ll separately break out those two sets of rights – those related to your right to engage in collective bargaining and the right to enforce the terms of your CBA. In this article, we first turn to the duty to bargain and how that is impacted by claimed “emergencies.” We’ll follow in a future newsletter article as to how this may impact your labor contract in front of an arbitrator.

Washington law requires public employers to engage in collective bargaining with the exclusive bargaining representative of their employees concerning mandatory subjects of bargaining, including wages, hours, and working conditions of employment. The scope of Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining is broad.  Cline and Associates maintains an extensive case table detailing which subjects have been ruled to be “mandatory,” “permissive,” or “illegal” subjects of bargaining. To understand whether a working condition can be changed – with or without an “emergency” we advise labor organizations to review the breadth of bargainable “wages, hours, and working conditions” demonstrated in great detail in our Subjects of Bargaining case table.

PERC  has recognized certain exceptions to the bargaining obligation. A unilateral change of a mandatory subject of bargaining can be lawfully implemented where (1) a party waives its bargaining rights by inaction, after adequate notice of the proposed change has been provided; or (2) the employer establishes a “business necessity” to impose the change. The focus of this article is on when the “business necessity” or “emergency” defense can excuse the general duty to bargain.

PERC has held that the business necessity defense may be applicable where a party to a collective bargaining relationship is faced with a compelling legal or practical need to make a change affecting a mandatory subject of bargaining.  It may then be relieved of its bargaining obligation but only to the extent necessary to deal with the emergency.

If an employer raises this necessity defense to an otherwise unlawful unilateral change, they must show that: (1) a legal necessity existed; (2) they provided adequate notice of the proposed change; and (3) that bargaining over the effects of the change did, in fact, occur or the complainant waived bargaining over the effects of the change.  If these elements are met, this may relieve the employer of its bargaining duty even if the decision to implement a unilateral change was presented as a fait accompli.

My Associate Troy Thornton and I have written a more detailed memo on this subject, available on our Premium Website. We’ve also assembled a detailed PERC case table that identifies the various cases in which the emergency defense has been raised by employers and how PERC has addressed that defense.

A review of those cases suggests that this defense is hardly a “slam dunk” for employers. In fact, the defense is generally rejected:

  • In Port of Walla Walla (Decision 9061-A (PORT, 2006) the Commission rejected an employer claim that its financial “emergency” voided its duty to bargaining layoffs, noting that similar budget shortfalls had occurred in the past;
  • In City of Tacoma (Decision 4539 (PECB, 1994) the Police Department’s failure to complete its negotiations for a drug testing policy before being faced with an under the influence officer did not establish an emergency allowing it to unilaterally impose its policy (later modified by the Commission that ruled that the fitness for duty policy could be applied instead);
  • In Evergreen School District (Decision 3954 (PECB, 1991)) an employer was allowed to temporarily skim a narrow book handling assignment that otherwise would have impeded the instruction process;
  • In Cowlitz County (Decision 3954 (PECB, 1991)) and Port of Anacortes (Decision 3954 (PECB, 1991)), employers would be allowed to temporarily change coverage when an insurance policy had lapsed, and employees would have been left without coverage.

These rulings indicate a reluctance by PERC to allow employers to evade bargaining simply by claiming an emergency. The emergency must be real and, even if found valid, it generally only excuses bargaining for the short term.

As always, you should be ready to assert your bargaining rights. If the employer claims the emergency excuse from bargaining, it should be viewed skeptically, and with the assistance of legal counsel.

PERC Holds that Whatcom County Commits ULP by Deducting PFMLA Premiums Without Bargaining

By: Jim Cline and Shanleigh Kennedy

The Public Employment Relations Commission held that Whatcom County committed a refusal to bargain ULP by unilaterally deciding to deduct Paid Family Medical Leave Act premiums from wages without bargaining. PERC reasoned that since this deduction affected “wages” it was a mandatory subject of bargaining. Decision 13082-A: Whatcom County. [Read more…]

Officer Has No Right to Privacy in Pre-Employment Polygraph Test

By: Cynthia McNabb and Clive Pontusson

In Sheats v. City of East Wenatchee, the Washington Court of Appeals determined that a Police Officer could not prevent the disclosure of the pre-employment polygraph test he took when he applied for employment with the East Wenatchee Police Department. Even though a polygraph report is generally exempt from disclosure under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA), an Officer who is seeking to prevent disclosure of a public record must show that disclosure is not in the public interest, or that it will damage a critical government function. Because Officer Sheats could not prove this, the Court of Appeals decided he could not prevent the City of East Wenatchee from disclosing the results of his polygraph test. [Read more…]

Employee Can Bring Lawsuit Before L&I Concludes Wage Complaint; May Have Claim for Wrongful Discharge

By: Cynthia McNabb and Clive Pontusson

In Peiffer v. Pro-Cut Concrete, an employee sued his employer for altering his timecards and shorting him on reported wages. Charles Peiffer claimed that Pro-Cut had unfairly withheld his wages. He filed a complaint with the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) who took over fourteen (14) months to investigate without making any findings. Not wanting to wait further for L&I to complete their investigation, Peiffer hired an employment attorney and sued the employer for wrongful termination and the withholding of wages. In the lower court proceeding, the two sides argued over whether or not his decision to file a complaint with L&I had given him extra time to file his lawsuit. The Washington Court of Appeals decided that Peiffer was allowed extra time to file a lawsuit despite the fact that L&I had not yet completed its investigation. The Court also decided that Peiffer may have a claim for wrongful discharge, and sent the case back for a new trial. It can sometimes be difficult for individuals to want to go up against a large company, even when they feel they are fully in the right. In these cases, a whistleblower lawyer can provide their assistance in trying to protect the rights of individuals in this predicament. Individuals who are filing a lawsuit should also know what to expect from a process server and other legal experts they are hiring. In addition, employees who are facing employment discrimination aside from other employment issues may consider consulting with Anaheim employment lawyers for immediate legal assistance.

[Read more…]

Florida Chief of Police’s Statements Not Protected By First Amendment

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Santarlas v. City of Coleman, a federal court ruled that a Chief of Police who was tasked with securing funding for the Department and complained about misuse of public funds was speaking as part of his job duties, not as a private citizen. As a result, the Chief’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment and he could not sue the City for violating his constitutional rights.

[Read more…]

Pennsylvania Officer’s Claim for Prior Restraint of Free Speech Can Proceed Against City

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Vanderhoff v. City of Nanticoke, a federal court ruled that an officer’s suit for prior restraint of his free speech rights against the Chief of Police and the City may proceed. The Chief of Police had warned him not to speak out about misconduct in the Police Department.

[Read more…]

Chicago Officer Involved in Shooting Denied Due Process by Indefinite Postponement of Hearing

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Policemen’ Benevolent & Protective Association v. City of Chicago, a federal court found that an officer’s due process rights had been violated when his disciplinary hearing was put off indefinitely while a criminal trial was in progress. The officer had been involved in a use of force incident in which other officers had been charged with crimes. To ensure that the defendants’ rights to due process are protected, they may need to hire a criminal defence lawyer.

[Read more…]

Texas Police Chief is Not Immune from Suit By Officer Who Tried to Form a Policeman’s Association

By: Loyd Willaford and Clive Pontusson

In Mote v. Walthall, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a Police Chief who threatened and intimated an Officer trying to form a policeman’s association could not assert a qualified immunity defense, because the Officer was engaging in Constitutionally-protected free speech. The lawsuit will therefore continue in a lower court.

[Read more…]