In Clallam CountyPERC Examiner Emily K. Whitney found that the Washington State Council of County and City Employees AFSCME Locals (unions) did not breach their obligation to bargain in good faith with the employer Clallam County. The employer alleged that the unions refused to reform a mutual mistake to memorandums of agreements (MOAs), excluded the employer’s bargaining representative from the bargaining process and refused to provide relevant information. Clallam County, Decisions 11829 and 11830 (PECB, 2013).
Employers commit an unfair labor practice if they do not engage in good faith bargaining of “personnel matters, including wages, hours and working conditions.” In a recent decision involving the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Guild, the Public Employment Relations Commission examined the scope of an employer’s obligation to bargain an employer provided benefit of legal representation for police officers involved in civil lawsuits.
In another setback for Kitsap County, the Public Employment Relations Commission upheld a previous ruling that a Kitsap County Deputy prosecutor unlawfully undermined an agreement that had been reached between the Kitsap Dispatchers Guild and the County. InKitsap County, Decision 11675-A (PECB 2013), the Commission held that it was a breach of the County's duty to bargain "in good faith" when it refused to ratify an agreement that it had already informed the Guild was agreeable to the County commissioners.
The Walla Walla County Commissioned Deputy Sheriff’s Association filed an unfair labor practice complaint alleging that Walla Walla County refused to engage in collective bargaining and interfered with employee rights by unilaterally changing the practice of compensating for the lunch hour during training days. PERC Examiner Slone-Gomez dismissed the complaint, finding that the County did not commit an unfair labor practice because the union failed to prove a “past practice”. Walla Walla County, Decision 11877 (PECB, 2013).
The Kitsap Deputies Guild last week prevailed on their motion for Summary Judgment before Pierce County Judge James Orlando, that an arbitrator imposed health insurance employee contribution increase should be stricken from an interest arbitration decision. He agreed with the Guild’s claims that the contributions were an unconstitutional “taking” and a violation of the state wage withholding law. Although the County vows to appeal, this case becomes the first known instance in which binding interest arbitrator decision has been modified by a Court.
Unions have a legitimate interest in preserving work that their bargaining units historically perform. Thus, it can be an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain any decision to transfer or ”skim” bargaining unit work. Recently, Everett Community College challenged the Commission’s ruling that it committed an unfair labor practice when it skimmed bargaining unit work previously performed by full-time counselors, without providing an opportunity for bargaining. Everett Community College, Decision 11135-C (CCOL, 2013).
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).
PERC Hearing Examiner Robin A. Romeo partially upheld an unfair labor practice complaint filed by the Public School Employees of Washington on behalf of a group of custodial employees employed by Washington State University. The complaint alleged that the employer refused to bargain when it laid-off a bargaining unit member, which substantially increased the workload of the remaining workers in violation of the Personnel System Reform Act, Chapter 41.80 RCW. Examiner Romeo found that although the decision to layoff the employee was not a mandatory subject of bargaining, the employer must still bargain with the union over the increased workload because the decision impacts working conditions. Washington State University, Decision 11704 (PSRA, 2013).
In Yakima Valley Community College,11326-A (PECB, 2013), the Commission found that the employer breached its good faith bargaining obligation when it unilaterally implemented its proposal, after it approached bargaining with a fixed outcome in mind to reduce wages. Contrary to the employer’s assertions that it was bargaining under budgetary terms imposed by the Legislature, the Commission found that the parties were not at a good faith impasse in bargaining and that unilateral implementation was not warranted because there was time to bargain the impact of the reduction of the employer’s budget on the bargaining unit. Therefore, it concluded, the employer acted improperly when it unilaterally implemented a temporary change to employee wages and work hours.
The recent ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court in Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. Oregon discussed on our blog, coincides with the Washington approach to contractual waivers. PERC has consistently ruled that waivers must be subject specific and that broad management rights language does not constitute a waiver of collective bargaining rights.
