By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
In King County, Examiner Casillas ruled that King County unilaterally changed the working conditions of King County Department of Public Defense (DPD) workers during a short-lived pilot program that transferred inmates out of the County.
The DPD provides legal representation for individuals charged with a crime in King County who otherwise cannot afford legal counsel. Due to the high volume of cases DPD employees handle, their offices are in close proximity to the two main jails and courthouses in King County. Many DPD attorneys represent around 70 clients at a time, and it is typical to visit the jail multiple times in a single day to work with clients.
In October 2022, King County gave public notice that it would be initiating a pilot program and contracting with the SCORE Jail in Des Moines Washington to house adult inmates. This was due to the high number of corrections officer vacancies in King County jails. The DPD’s Union, Service Employees International Union, Local 925, was not given notice of this change and only found out after being tipped off by the Corrections Guild President.
The County and the Union met a total of six times to discuss the SCORE pilot program, but the County insisted that it was moving forward and did not believe it had to bargain this decision. The Union raised a variety of concerns, citing the list of impacts to working conditions for DPD employees that would hinder their ability to work. When the program launched in June 2023, DPD employees noted significant problems at the SCORE facility that hindered their work, such as bad Wi-Fi, lack of interpretive services, and lack of sufficient confidential meeting areas. The County ended up cancelling the pilot program after just three months due to logistical issues.
At an Unfair Labor Practice hearing, the County argued that the number of inmates transferred to SCORE was negligible, and thus did not meaningfully affect the status quo for DPD employees. However, the Examiner noted that this was due to a failure of the pilot program itself and ruled that King County engaged in a fait accompli – making a change to the working conditions for DPD employees without giving them notice or opportunity to bargain.
The Examiner also noted the strong public interest in the DPD’s ability to provide effective legal services to inmates in King County. Any impact to the public’s right to effective legal counsel was found to weigh in favor of the Union:
“Even the slightest degradation of public legal defense stemming from the SCORE Jail partnership is enough to weigh heavily on the public’s interest in effective government services given the significance of the right impaired in this situation.”
Therefore, the Examiner ruled Union met its burden of proof to demonstrate a change to a mandatory subject of bargaining.
This case presents some interesting issues about the relocation of work for which there is not any apparent PERC precedent. The Examiner did not cite any PERC cases on point and our research has not identified any. This case is on appeal to the Commission and we’ll watch how they resolve this.
While the Examiner cited to the public interest factor, that normally has been provide reduced or very little weight by the Commission. The real issue here is the impact on employee working conditions (balanced against the employer right to make basic operational decisions.
While management predictably would argue that relocation of work is a management right, this case demonstrates that relocation can have a direct impact on some employees’ working conditions. In this case the Examiner noted the heavy time demands on the defense attorneys, which included a requirement to visit innates within 24 hours.
While not much discussed in the decision, an important consideration that may persuade the Commission on appeal is that these employees are FLSA exempt, and their salary does not increase even as the hours of their work does. If the issue involved hourly employees who traveled on the clock, such a change might not be bargainable.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Unilateral Changes in Mandatory Subject of Bargaining, Workplace Procedures and Standards and Restoration of Status Quo**
