Washington Labor and Employment Blog
The latest case law and legal developments in Washington labor & employment law.
By Jim Cline
A recent decision by PERC hearing examiner in Lake Washington School District and described in more detail in our recent blog article serves as an important reminder to pay close attention to all timelines. Although this decision arose in the context of an unfair labor practice complaint and PERC six-month statute of limitations, the same lesson applies in the processing of grievances under your labor contract.
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 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 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.
By Therese Norton
Both unions and employers have the right to designate who represents them in the collective bargaining process. In Kiona Benton School District, PERC Hearing Examiner Guy Coss ruled, without a hearing, after a motion for “summary judgment”, that the Kiona Benton Education Association breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to bargain with the School District’s designated collective bargaining representatives.
By Therese Norton
A union representative is generally permitted to assist a fellow union member who is facing a discipline investigation. But, does that assistance include speaking with potential witnesses? And if so, when can a union representative speak with those potential witnesses?
