August 13, 2015 by

PERC Reverses Examiner, Holds Kitsap County Did Not Bargain In Bad Faith

By Chris Casillas and Sarah Derry

procurement rulesIn Kitsap County, PERC overturned Examiner Ramerman’s decision that Kitsap County engaged in bad faith bargaining.  The Commission considered two separate issues: (1) whether to consider Kitsap County’s brief even though it was submitted late; and (2) whether Kitsap County breached its duty to bargain in good faith with the Juvenile Detention Officers’ Guild. On the first issue, the Commission refused to consider the employer’s late brief, emphasizing that its procedural rules are to be followed in every case.  PERC characterized the late-filing as acting “in complete disregard of our procedural rules” and that it had “previously cautioned the employer that it disregards the Commission’s rules at its own peril.”

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining
July 29, 2015 by

PERC Holds that Warden School District Did Not Commit A ULP When It Did Not Bargain With the Union Over Whether to Change the School Calendar and that Principal’s Statement to Employee Was Not Interference With Union Rights

By Chris Casillas and Sarah Derry

crystal ballIn Warden School District, PERC Examiner Whitney considered two unrelated issues:  First, the employer did not commit a ULP by not bargaining with the union over whether to adopt a perpetual calendar for the school year. Examiner Whitney found that: (1) the employer had been using the same calendar adoption process for nine years, so there was no change, and (2) although the union wanted to adopt a “perpetual calendar,” the Union never directly proposed it, so the school district did not refuse to bargain. Second, Examiner Whitney determined that the school district did not interfere with a teacher’s union rights by threatening to fire him if he did not take on another class, in part because another teacher testified that she did not think the complaining teacher had been threatened.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining, Scope of Bargaining
May 14, 2015 by

PERC Holds That The Port of Bellingham Did Not Commit A ULP When It Transferred Daily Inspection Duties Away From Its Maintenance Employees

By Chris Casillas and Jordan L. Jones

conveyor-beltIn Port of Bellingham, PERC Examiner Martin held that the employer did not commit a ULP by transferring daily inspection duties away from its maintenance employees without first providing an opportunity to bargain. Examiner Martin noted that the Port did not have an obligation to bargain in this case because (1) the work was so briefly assigned to the maintenance bargaining unit, (2) non-bargaining unit employees had also been performing the work, and (3) by the time the work was transferred to other port employees it was fundamentally different from the maintenance bargaining unit’s regular work.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Scope of Bargaining
April 28, 2015 by

PERC Holds that Central Washington University Committed a ULP When It Contracted Out a Roofing Project Without First Providing Notice to and an Opportunity to Bargain With the Maintenance Mechanics Union

By Chris Casillas and Jordan L. Jones

opportunityIn Central Washington University, PERC Examiner Slone-Gomez held that the University committed a ULP when it contracted out a roofing project without first providing notice to and an opportunity to bargain with the Maintenance Mechanics Union in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a) and (e).

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
February 25, 2015 by

PERC Holds that Kitsap County Failed to Bargain in Good Faith After it “Effectively Hamstrung” Employer Representatives with Insufficient Authority at the Bargaining Table

By Chris Casillas and Jordan L. Jones

kitsap hogtiedIn Kitsap County, PERC Examiner Dianne Ramerman held that the Employer “failed to bargain in good faith and committed a ULP in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) and derivatively interfered with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1).” Examiner Ramerman found that Kitsap County’s “representatives at the table [with the Kitsap County Juvenile Detention Officers’ Guild] did not have sufficient authority to engage in meaningful bargaining.” Specifically, Examiner Ramerman found that Kitsap County’s representatives at the table were:

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining, Duty to Bargain
January 27, 2015 by

PERC Holds that the Seattle School District Refused to Bargain in Good Faith by Failing to Timely Provide Relevant Information Requested by the Union

 By Christopher Casillas and Jordan L. Jones

JAsIn  Seattle School District, PERC Examiner Ramerman held that the Employer refused to bargain in good faith by failing to timely provide relevant information requested by the International Union of Operating Engineers in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and (4). Examiner Ramerman noted that “although the [E]mployer acknowledged the [Union’s information] request two weeks after the request was made, the [E]mployer ‘dropped the ball’ and took no additional action for approximately five weeks from late August 2013 until early October 2013.”

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Provide Information
January 22, 2015 by

PERC Dismisses ULP Complaint Filed Against the Port of Anacortes for Unilaterally Changing the Health Insurance Benefits of the Union Because of Business Necessity

By Christopher Casillas and Jordan L. Jones

health_insurance_signIn Port of Anacortes, PERC Examiner Page Garcia dismissed an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint filed against the Port of Anacortes for unilaterally changing the health insurance benefits of Union members. Examiner Garcia found that although the Port of Anacortes had “failed to maintain the status quo by changing the health insurance benefits offered to bargaining unit employees” and had “presented the change in health insurance benefits as a fait accompli”, the Employer “met its burden of proof to support its defense of business necessity.”

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
December 2, 2014 by

PERC Reverses Examiner on Triggering Event for Skimming Allegation

By Chris Casillas and Therese Norton

dominoeA ‘triggering event’ signals important deadlines for filing unfair labor practice complaints or else a party may risk losing the opportunity to file a complaint with the Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC). In Lake Washington School District, the Commission found that the Examiner Page A. Garcia erred in dismissing the IBEW Local 46’s skimming complaint as untimely and beyond the statute of limitations. The Commission explained that, in a skimming case, the triggering event for the statute of limitations is when bargaining unit work is assigned to non-bargaining unit employees, and not when the union receives notice of the employer’s intent to transfer the work, as the Examiner had concluded.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
November 7, 2014 by

PERC finds Deputy Sheriff’s Association Bargained Regressively on Eve of Interest Arbitration

By Therese Norton

MaliceBoth employer and union can violate their good faith bargaining obligations under the state collective bargaining laws when one party advances proposals prior to interest arbitration that are regressive from proposals made earlier in negotiations. In Spokane County (Spokane County Deputy Sheriff’s Association), PERC Examiner Stephen W. Irvin found, and the Commission affirmed, that the Spokane County Deputy Sheriff’s Association breached its good faith bargaining obligations by submitting a regressive wage proposal after impasse and shortly before the parties’ scheduled interest arbitration hearing.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining
September 29, 2014 by

ULP Alleges School District Provided Union with False Information

By Therese Norton

misleadingThe Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) vacated an order dismissing the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 609’s unfair labor practice complaint against the Seattle School District.  Seattle School District, Decision 11995-A (PECB, 2014). The union had alleged the School District had provided false and misleading information in response to its information request regarding placing an employee on administrative leave.  The District must now file its answer to the complaint, and the matter can proceed to a full evidentiary hearing.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Duty to Provide Information
« Previous Page
Next Page »