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 Washington State Patrol, PERC Examiner Hartrich found that WSP interfered with employee rights when it directed a shop steward not to inquire about relevant facts while preparing to represent a bargaining unit employee in an investigatory interview. Washington State Patrol, Decision 11775 (PSRA, 2013).
A recent decision by the Washington State Supreme Court appears to be fair warning to elected city officials who mismanage personnel matters and violate employee rights. In a recent decision, the Washington State Supreme Court approved recall charges against the City of Pacific Mayor on multiple grounds, including poor personnel management practices, employment retaliation, and violating union contracts.
It is an unfair labor practice for an employer to say that employees could avoid a salary reduction if they were not represented by a union. PERC Examiner Claire Nickleberry recently found that Skagit Valley College interfered with employee collective bargaining rights by making such comments because they had a chilling effect on employees. Skagit Valley College, Decision 11536-A (PSRA, 2013).
In City of Mukilteo, Arbitrator Steve Irvin ruled that the city did not violate its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the firefighters’ union when it assigned mandatory overtime to cover a public education event. The arbitrator found that, under the CBA, the city has the contractual right to assign overtime to meet its operational needs. Moreover, the city has a broad spectrum of possibilities for overtime use—such as public education.
In Barnett v. Sequim Valley Ranch, the court upheld a $427,230 jury award for the plaintiffs and former employees of Sequim Valley Ranch. The court held that the plaintiffs’ constructive, wrongful discharge suit was timely filed, and the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of a wrongful constructive discharge claim.
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).
Protected union activity is not an absolute right when it becomes unreasonable. In a recent decision, PERC Examiner Casey King determined that the State of Washington Corrections did not discriminate against, or interfere with the rights of Local 117 union steward Darren Kelly when it reassigned Mr. Kelly out of his bid position. Examiner King reached this decision finding that Mr. Kelly had not engaged in protected activities. State – Corrections, Decision 11747 (PSRA, 2013).
In a recent PERC decision, Examiner Slone-Gomez dismissed a union discrimination claim because the union was unable to prove that the employer discriminated against a bargaining unit member by terminating him in reprisal for union activities. City of Centralia, Decision 11687 (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).
