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)
The specific policy at issue in this case, was the policy which limited the maximum accrual of vacation time to 240 hours. Any unused vacation over the maximum would be forfeited at the end of each calendar year.
A charge is timely if it is filed within six months of clear and unambiguous notice of the acts which are the basis of the charge. Examiner King found that the union had clear and unambiguous notice that the employer intended to implement the maximum vacation accrual policy in January 2005, and again in October 2011. In fact, in 2005, the Association attorney filed a bargaining demand letter on the issue specifically claiming that an unlawful change was being imposed, but then never followed up to stop the change. In October 2011, the Association was again reminded of the change but no ULP was filed until May 2012. In this case, the union filed this ULP charge in May 2012, one month beyond the time limit. Therefore, the Examiner dismissed the matter.
Aside from the timeliness issue, the Examiner found that the charge could also be dismissed because the union failed to establish that any change occurred regarding the forfeiture of accrued vacation time over the 240-hour maximum. The union had argued that the employer changed the status quo when it sent emails to the union in 2012 regarding the vacation policy; however, the Examiner determined that the employer was simply communicating what had already been the status quo for several years.
Notably, the Examiner found that there was no dispute that the forfeiture of vacation hours is a mandatory subject of bargaining. He stated, “[t]he use of vacation hours and how they are earned is a long established mandatory subject of bargaining.” Thus, if the Examiner had found a change to the status quo, presumably the employer would have had to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain.
