Washington Labor and Employment Blog
The latest case law and legal developments in Washington labor & employment law.
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…]
By Jim Cline
In a recent blog article, we cited the recent difficulties involving the City of Mountlake Terrace and its police department. Although many of those issues involved Assistant City Manager Scott Hugill, a fair number of the issues involved Police Chief Greg Wilson. In a decision just released by PERC hearing examiner Robin Romeo, Wilson was found to have committed numerous ULPs. [Read more…]
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.
By Jim Cline
Just last month, we wrote about a recent Ninth Circuit decision involving the Oregon Marion County Sheriff’s Office, in which the Ninth Circuit ruled that the enforcement of an arbitration award might be an enforceable “property interest” within the meaning of the due process clause. In that same article, we noted that this might provide labor organization an additional tool for enforcing arbitration awards. We also noted the 2009 Kitsap County Deputy Sheriffs’ Guild Supreme Court decision holding that “final and binding” decisions were, well, “final and binding”:
By Kate Acheson
In Kiona Benton School District, Decision 11563 (EDUC, 2012), the union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labor practice, in retaliating against three, school district employees who exercised their statutory right to participate in an earlier PERC ULP proceeding. PERC hearing examiner Steve Irvin concluded that even though the employees had engaged in protected activities and the employer’s layoffs arguably violated the collective bargaining agreement, the union did not carry its burden of proof that the employer actions were pretextual.
By Jim Cline
The recent ruling of the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Scavone v. Pennsylvania State Police), governing preemployment tattoo policies, addresses some interesting issues and is explained in a recent blog article. Our readers should be aware, that these issues are not controlling, or in any way dispositive of employers separate obligations under collective bargaining laws.
By Rick Gautschi
In Central Washington University, Decision 10967-A (PECB, 2012) during May 2009, the employer indicated that it was considering making changes to the hours of work of certain employees. In October 2009, the union filed a representation petition to include those employees in a bargaining unit. In early May 2010, PERC’s Executive Director dismissed the petition. The following day, the union appealed the dismissal to the Commission and gave notice of the appeal to the employer. Later the same month, the employer announced its decision to reduce the work hours of the employees who were the subject of the representation petition. On June 3, 2010, the union filed an unfair labor practice complaint, alleging that the employer had failed to preserve the status quo and in doing so had unlawfully interfered with the employees’ rights. The following day, the union withdrew its appeal.
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.
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…]
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…]
