PERC Examiner Dismisses ULP Complaint about Unilateral Change to Sheriff Deputies’ Compensation for Lunch Hour During Trainings

By Therese Norton

The Walla Walla County Commissioned Deputy Sheriff’s Association filed an unfair labor practice complaint alleging that Walla Walla County refused to engage in collective bargaining and interfered with employee rights by unilaterally changing the practice of compensating for the lunch hour during training days. PERC Examiner Slone-Gomez dismissed the complaint, finding that the County did not commit an unfair labor practice because the union failed to prove a “past practice”.  Walla Walla County, Decision 11877 (PECB, 2013).

[Read more…]

Examiner Dismisses ULP Charge Where Charge is Untimely and There is No Change to Vacation Accrual Policy

By Therese Norton

In general, PERC will dismiss an unfair labor practice charge if it is not filed within six month. On May 13, 2013, PERC Examiner Casey King dismissed a ULP charge brought by the Walla Walla Commissioned Deputy Sheriff’s Association against Walla Walla County.  The union asserted that Walla Walla County had unilaterally changed its policy regarding forfeiture of unused vacation time.  Examiner King dismissed the charge as untimely, and even if it was filed timely, the union failed to establish that the county had changed the policy. Walla Walla County, Decision 11751 (PECB, 2013)

[Read more…]

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…]

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…]