In University of Washington, Examiner Bradley ruled that University of Washington (UW) changing bargaining unit employees’ overtime eligibility status to comply with Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) rules was not a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining.
In City of Grand Coulee, PERC dismissed a representation petition that requested to separate City police officers from the city-wide bargaining unit and place them into their own police only bargaining unit. (Grand Coulee’s population is less than the 2500 that would make that interest arbitration eligible.) PERC reasoned that severance from the bargaining unit was not appropriate when police officers still shared a community interest with other City employees and there was a long history of the bargaining unit successfully negotiating on behalf of police officers.
In Walla Walla Community College, a PERC Examiner ruled that a college administrator was to be excluded from the bargaining unit representing rank and file higher education staff. The Examiner held that although the administrative employee had in the past done fill-in work for staff, the employee was still exempt from the bargaining unit because of her primary function as an administrator.
In WA Interpreters v. PERC and Dept of Labor & Industries, the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed a PERC decision which ruled that the bargaining rights of interpreters were not violated when the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) implemented a new policy during the pendency of a representation petition. The policy at issue related to working conditions as it controlled how the interpreters could schedule appointments and receive payments.
In Bethel School District, Examiner Whitney partially dismissed a complaint that alleged that the Employer had engaged in direct dealing even though it had directly proposed a plan to employees without union representation present and misreported the status of the meetings to the union.
In a decision using scorching language in Snohomish County, Examiner Leonard entirely dismissed all 11 claims the Snohomish County Corrections Guild filed against Snohomish County. While the claims varied in issue, Examiner Leonard found that for each allegation, the Guild did not support their claims with sufficient evidence, failing to upload their burden of proof. The Guild’s conduct was characterized as reprehensible by the Examiner as he discussed whether to impose attorney fees for multiple frivolous claims.
In Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Examiner Elizabeth Snyder found that the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (Employer) unilaterally changed working conditions for two Washington Federation of State Employees (Union) employees when it removed their new positions from the bargaining unit. The Employer’s unilateral change constituted a refusal to bargain because it changed the conditions of the employees’ employment and impacted working conditions, which are a mandatory subject of bargaining.
In City of Seattle, Examiner Christopher Casillas dismissed a complaint after finding the Complainant failed to satisfy each element necessary for a discrimination prima facie case. The Complainant had been placed on administrative reassignment while the City investigated an incident involving Complainant; however, he did not lose any pay, leave, or benefits while on reassignment, and thus, failed to prove a deprivation of rights.
In Spokane School District, Examiner Hickey held that the Spokane Education Association had violated its duty of fair representation by withholding requested information from an investigatory meeting. Complainant had relied on the Union representative’s promise to share notes, but the representative later refused without citing any legitimate interest for the withholding.
In Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Examiner Greer dismissed the complaint, holding that the Employer did not discriminate against the Complainant, who alleged she was terminated after communicating her intent to join a grievance. However, Examiner Greer found the Employer’s reasons for termination “were not pretextual for discrimination, nor substantially motivated by union animus.”
