Archives for August 2012

August 28, 2012 By

Western Washington Federal Court Declines to Remand a Plaintiff’s Lawsuit to a Washington State Court

By Rick Gautschi

In Watson v. Providence St. Peter Hospital, 193 LRRM 3056, No. C12-5352 BHS, July 18, 2012, W.D. Wa., during March 2012, Carroll Watson (Ms. Watson) filed a complaint in Thurston County, WA, Superior Court against Providence St. Peter Hospital and several agents of the hospital (Providence St. Peter).  Although she set forth eight separate claims in the complaint, all eight derived from her allegation that the defendants had denied her meal and rest breaks to which she was entitled.  She contended that the denial meant that for extended periods, she had to continue working while she was seated in her own human waste.   As a result of doing so, she suffered injuries for which she sought redress.  Soon after Ms. Watson filed the complaint, Providence St. Peter, citing the Labor Management Relations Act’s (LMRA’s) provision that confers original jurisdiction over claims that arise out of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), removed the case to federal court.  Subsequently, Ms. Watson moved to have the federal court remand the case back to Thurston County Superior Court on the ground that her claims did not require interpretation of provisions in a CBA.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases
August 20, 2012 By

PERC Affirms Decision that Central Washington University Unlawfully Interfered with Employees’ Rights Reducing Work Hours of Employees who were the Subject of Pending Representation Petition

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.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: 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 16, 2012 By

Commission Upholds Hearing Examiner’s Decision that “Extenuating” Circumstances Justified an Employer’s Decision to Exclude an Employee’s First Choice of a Union Representative

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…]

Filed Under: Weingarten Rights
August 9, 2012 By

Hearing Examiner Rules that Enumerated Rights in Collective Bargaining are Permissive Subjects of Bargaining

By Rick Gautschi

 

In City of Bellevue, Decision 11435 (PECB, 2012) the union alleged that the employer had committed two unfair labor practices in the collective bargaining process.  First, the employer proposed maintaining a “management rights” provision that listed enumerated rights in the existing collective bargaining agreement.  When the union proposed deleting the provision, over the union’s objection, the employer insisted on including the provision and on certifying the enumerated items to interest arbitration.  Second, the employer bargained to impasse and sought interest arbitration of an attorneys’ fees provision in existing grievance procedure language. [Read more…]

Filed Under: _
August 9, 2012 By

Commission Asserts Jurisdiction Over a Police Officer’s Claim that Her Union Interfered with Her Rights by Failing to File a Grievance

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…]

Filed Under: Representation and Unit Determination
August 8, 2012 By

Commission Vacates an Election Because the Notice of Election Misidentified the Employer

By Rick Gautschi

In City of Seattle, Decision 11413 (PECB, 2012), a union filed a petition seeking to include a group of unrepresented employees of the City of Seattle in an existing bargaining unit.  Subsequently, a mail ballot election occurred, the result of which was conclusive in favor of the union.  Two eligible voters filed timely election objections.  Only one of the objectors voted in the election.  The non-voting objector claimed that the ballot was for King County. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Representation and Unit Determination
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
August 1, 2012 By

Washington Supreme Court Announces New Test for Deciding Independent Contractor/Employee Status

By Cynthia McNabb

Workers in Washington State, currently classified by their employer’s as “independent contractors” should be aware that the Washington Supreme Court has recently ruled that some of these workers may actually be “employees” under the Washington Minimum Wage Act and thus entitled to minimum wage and overtime benefits. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases