By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
In King County, Examiner Willaford determined that the Union successfully proved the County violated its duty to bargain by making mandatory overtime a condition of employment. The Examiner ruled that King County’s practice of medically separating corrections officers with medical restrictions on working overtime was a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining.
The King County Corrections Guild represents about 380 corrections officers in the County. Since at least 2014, the County has tried to add mandatory overtime to the essential duties of corrections officers during contract talks with the Union. Historically, the County has allowed officers with medical restrictions on overtime to be exempt, though they would lose accrued federal Family and Medical Leave (FML) time for any overtime hours they did not work.
In late 2023, the County sent a few officers notices that it intended to medically separate them from employment due to their medical restrictions on overtime and exhaustion of FML, placing one of these officers on paid administrative leave while separation was considered.
The Union demanded to bargain on this decision, alleging the employer unilaterally changed the working conditions of corrections officers by including mandatory overtime as a condition of employment. The County argued that its reasonable accommodation process and “essential functions” definitions were not mandatory subjects of bargaining as they are controlled by other laws.
The Examiner dismissed the County’ argument and found that medical separation of employees in this case was a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Examiner noted that the existence of other laws related to the topic does not preclude the agency’s jurisdiction over a topic when labor law imposes additional obligations on the parties. For 14 years prior to summer of 2023, the employer accommodated hundreds of officers who had medical restrictions on overtime. There was no evidence the Union was ever notified that an officer who excused their FML accruals would be medically separated from employment. The Examiner’s reasoning is best summarized by this quote:
“The union was required to prove a set of working conditions existed and that the employer made a meaningful change to those working conditions. It met that burden when it proved that the employer accommodated employees who had overtime restrictions and then decided to no longer accommodate some of them.”
The Examiner ordered that officers who suffered an economic impact were entitled to reinstatement and back pay from their date of separation to the order.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Layoffs and General Standard for Classification**
