The three-member Commission, hearing an appeal in a complex case involving numerous allegations of discrimination and interference involving the SNOCOM 911 Regional Dispatch Center, recently affirmed a decision issued by the Hearing Examiner sustaining numerous unfair labor practice charges. The case originally involved nearly a dozen and one-half independent allegations of unfair labor practices alleged by the SNOCOM Dispatchers’ Association, many involving a strong anti-union bias by SNOCOM’s Director, Debbie Grady, against the then-President and Vice President of the Association. In an abbreviated decision, the Commission upheld all of the Examiner’s findings and conclusions outlining the scope of SNOCOM’s unlawful behavior.
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.
In King County, Decision 11319-A (PECB, 2013), the Commission affirmed Examiner Karyl Elinski’s decision that King County engaged in an unfair labor practice when it unilaterally changed the parking fees it charges to members of the King County Corrections Guild in its parking garage. The Commission explained that it has long recognized that changes to employee parking are a mandatory subject of bargaining because it impacts employee working conditions.
In a recent blog article, we cited the recent difficulties involving the City of Mountlake Terrace and its police department. Although many of those issues involved Assistant City Manager Scott Hugill, a fair number of the issues involved Police Chief Greg Wilson. In a decision just released by PERC hearing examiner Robin Romeo, Wilson was found to have committed numerous ULPs.
Finding that controversial, Kitsap County Deputy Prosecutor Jacquelyn Aufderheide violated PERC requirements including an after-the-fact “torpedoing” of a tentative agreement reached between the Kitsap County labor negotiator and the Dispatchers’ Guild, in a recently released Kitsap County Decision 11675, PERC Hearing Examiner Guy Coss cited Aufderheide with a ULP and other rule violations.
Just last month, we wrote about a recent Ninth Circuit decision involving the Oregon Marion County Sheriff's Office, in which the Ninth Circuit ruled that the enforcement of an arbitration award might be an enforceable "property interest" within the meaning of the due process clause. In that same article, we noted that this might provide labor organization an additional tool for enforcing arbitration awards. We also noted the 2009 Kitsap County Deputy Sheriffs’ Guild Supreme Court decision holding that "final and binding" decisions were, well, "final and binding."
In Kiona Benton School District, Decision 11563 (EDUC, 2012), the union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labor practice, in retaliating against three, school district employees who exercised their statutory right to participate in an earlier PERC ULP proceeding. PERC hearing examiner Steve Irvin concluded that even though the employees had engaged in protected activities and the employer's layoffs arguably violated the collective bargaining agreement, the union did not carry its burden of proof that the employer actions were pretextual.
The recent ruling of the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Scavone v. Pennsylvania State Police), governing preemployment tattoo policies, addresses some interesting issues and is explained in a recent blog article. Our readers should be aware, that these issues are not controlling, or in any way dispositive of employers separate obligations under collective bargaining laws.
In Central Washington University, Decision 10967-A (PECB, 2012) during May 2009, the employer indicated that it was considering making changes to the hours of work of certain employees. In October 2009, the union filed a representation petition to include those employees in a bargaining unit. In early May 2010, PERC’s Executive Director dismissed the petition. The following day, the union appealed the dismissal to the Commission and gave notice of the appeal to the employer. Later the same month, the employer announced its decision to reduce the work hours of the employees who were the subject of the representation petition. On June 3, 2010, the union filed an unfair labor practice complaint, alleging that the employer had failed to preserve the status quo and in doing so had unlawfully interfered with the employees’ rights. The following day, the union withdrew its appeal.
