In Community Transit, PERC Examiner Ramerman held that installation of video cameras on buses is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. Examiner Ramerman reasoned that: (1) video cameras had already been used in the buses, albeit in a more limited capacity; (2) bus drivers have no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving the buses; and (3) the cameras could further the employer’s significant interest in passenger and driver safety. Based on these three determinations, Examiner Ramerman concluded that the employer is not required to bargain with the bus drivers’ union over the camera installation.
In City of Walla Walla, Examiner Slone-Gomez held that the City of Walla Walla did not unilaterally change the off-duty weapon policy for police officers and sergeants. The Examiner determined that the employer provided notice and opportunity to bargain the policy, but that the Guild waived its right to bargain through inaction.
In 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.”
In 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.
In Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81 v. Spokane Educ. Ass’n, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Three held that a provisional elementary counselor was not eligible for arbitration under the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA).
In 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.
In 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).
In Port of Anacortes, the Commission reversed an Examiner’s decision that the Employer did not unilaterally change working conditions by ending the use of a light duty assignment without providing notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain. The Commission held that the Examiner incorrectly analyzed the issue as to whether the Employer unilaterally changed a past practice. The Commission stated that in cases involving newly organized bargaining units who had not finished negotiating their first CBAs, the issue is whether the Employer unilaterally changed the status quo without bargaining.
In Sambasivan v. Kadlec Medical Center, Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals, overturned the dismissal of a doctor’s racial discrimination and retaliation claims. The Indian doctor sued the Hospital after it implemented a proficiency standard that prevented him from practicing his specialty. The trial court dismissed his claims, finding that the doctor lacked the necessary relationships with the Hospital to allow his lawsuit. However, the Court of Appeals reversed that decision, holding that such claims could be brought when the Hospital interfered with the doctor’s right to make additional contracts with the Hospital and obtain new patients when the doctor was acting as an independent contractor for the Hospital in certain functions.
In Becker v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals determined that a Chief Financial Officer could sue his former employer for firing him when he refused to submit a false or misleading financial report. Although the Company sought to dismiss the CFO’s lawsuit, the Court decided that the former CFO could pursue a state common law claim for “wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.”
