May 17, 2013 by

Hearing Examiner Finds That Employer Must Bargain Over Increased Workload Caused by Layoff

By Therese Norton

PERC Hearing Examiner Robin A. Romeo partially upheld an unfair labor practice complaint filed by the Public School Employees of Washington on behalf of a group of custodial employees employed by Washington State University.  The complaint alleged that the employer refused to bargain when it laid-off a bargaining unit member, which substantially increased the workload of the remaining workers in violation of the Personnel System Reform Act, Chapter 41.80 RCW.  Examiner Romeo found that although the decision to layoff the employee was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, the employer must still bargain with the union over the increased workload because the decision impacts working conditions. Washington State University, Decision 11704 (PSRA, 2013). 

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Bargain, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights, Scope of Bargaining
April 26, 2013 by

PERC Finds that Unilateral Implementation Following Negotiation with a Fixed Outcome is an Unfair Labor Practice

By Therese Norton

In Yakima Valley Community College,11326-A (PECB, 2013), the Commission found that the employer breached its good faith bargaining obligation when it unilaterally implemented its proposal, after it approached bargaining with a fixed outcome in mind to reduce wages. Contrary to the employer’s assertions that it was bargaining under budgetary terms imposed by the Legislature, the Commission found that the parties were not at a good faith impasse in bargaining and that unilateral implementation was not warranted because there was time to bargain the impact of the reduction of the employer’s budget on the bargaining unit.  Therefore, it concluded, the employer acted improperly when it unilaterally implemented a temporary change to employee wages and work hours. 

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining, Duty to Bargain, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
April 26, 2013 by

Oregon Supreme Court “Waiver” Ruling Consistent with Washington Law

By Jim Cline

The recent ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court in Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. Oregon discussed on our blog, coincides with the Washington approach to contractual waivers.  PERC has consistently ruled that waivers must be subject specific and that broad management rights language does not constitute a waiver of collective bargaining rights.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Bargain, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
April 12, 2013 by

Increase in Parking Fees Is a Mandatory Subject of Bargaining

By Therese Norton

In King County, Decision 11319-A (PECB, 2013), the Commission affirmed Examiner Karyl Elinski’s decision that King County engaged in an unfair labor practice when it unilaterally changed the parking fees it charges to members of the King County Corrections Guild in its parking garage.  The Commission explained that it has long recognized that changes to employee parking are a mandatory subject of bargaining because it impacts employee working conditions. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Bargain, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
March 22, 2013 by

Controversial Kitsap Deputy Prosecutor Cited by PERC for Violating Rules

By Jim Cline

Finding that controversial, Kitsap County Deputy Prosecutor Jacquelyn Aufderheide violated PERC requirements including an after-the-fact “torpedoing” of a tentative agreement reached between the Kitsap County labor negotiator and the Dispatchers’ Guild, in a recently released Kitsap County Decision 11675, PERC Hearing Examiner Guy Coss cited Aufderheide with a ULP and other rule violations.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Bargain, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
August 20, 2012 by

Hearing Examiner Determines that the University of Washington Committed Several Unfair Labor Practice Violations

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. 

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Bargain, Duty to Provide Information, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights, Scope of Bargaining
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
« Previous Page