By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In City of Grand Coulee, PERC dismissed a representation petition that requested to separate City police officers from the city-wide bargaining unit and place them into their own police only bargaining unit. (Grand Coulee’s population is less than the 2500 that would make that interest arbitration eligible.) PERC reasoned that severance from the bargaining unit was not appropriate when police officers still shared a community interest with other City employees and there was a long history of the bargaining unit successfully negotiating on behalf of police officers.
Police officers of Grand Coulee have been represented by a city-wide bargaining unit, Teamster Local 760, for over 40 years. In addition to police officers, Teamster Local 760 represents utility workers, treatment plant operators, assistant clerks, laborers, and all other employees who provide services to the City and Grand Coulee Dam. The Grand Coulee Police Officers Association became dissatisfied with Teamster Local 760 after a grievance related to working hours and conditions resulted in an unfavorable outcome. The Association then filed a petition to become the exclusive bargaining unit of police officers in the City of Grand Coulee.
The Examiner first noted that a city-wide, “wall-to-wall” bargaining unit is typically thought of as appropriate, if not the most appropriate bargaining unit structure for employees operating in a small city centered around a single utility facility. Further, the Examiner noted that a disruption to a long-standing structure would have to have a compelling justification. Severance would only be appropriate if the Association could show either a lack of community interest or that the bargaining unit lacks the ability to adequately represent police officers.
While police officers are the only employees that provide law enforcement services, this by itself does not mean that a shared community interest does not exists. Nothing in the record showed a change in circumstances that affected the long-existing shared community interest. In considering the bargaining unit’s ability to represent the police officers, the Examiner concluded that,
“Nothing in this record demonstrates that the Teamsters lack the ability to successfully negotiate a collective bargaining agreement on behalf of Police Officers and the remaining bargaining unit. While there may have been some dissatisfaction with the outcome of a particular bargaining subject, this does not indicate the Teamsters were not able to negotiate on the Police Officer’s behalf.”
Thus, the Examiner dismissed the petition because the Association failed to give a compelling justification for why severance of the bargaining unit was appropriate.
As much as the officers were unhappy with the Teamsters this is a very predictable outcome. PERC has repeatedly denied the ability of law enforcement in non-IA groups to sever from wall-to-wall City or County bargaining units. This issue only arises in Cities with less than 2500 in population and Counties with less than 10,000. Typically, the work forces of those governments are small and a single bargaining unit may represent all union employees.
The officers’ claims that the Teamsters were ineffective was somewhat factually plausible but not legally compelling under PERC’s standards. PERC has rarely granted severance solely on ineffective representation claims. The officers would have to prove that they, more or less, had been completely excluded from the contract negotiations process. In this case, the Teamsters did not consult with the officers and entered a careless MOU that degraded their work schedule. Their frustration with bad representation did not convince PERC that they had had no representation.
In 
In 
