In Kitsap County, PERC Examiner Dianne Ramerman held that the Employer “failed to bargain in good faith and committed a ULP in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) and derivatively interfered with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1).” Examiner Ramerman found that Kitsap County’s “representatives at the table [with the Kitsap County Juvenile Detention Officers’ Guild] did not have sufficient authority to engage in meaningful bargaining.” Specifically, Examiner Ramerman found that Kitsap County’s representatives at the table were.
In Pierce County, PERC Examiner Lisa A. Hartrich held that the Employer did not commit an unfair labor practice (ULP). Examiner Hartrich stated that the Union did not make a prima facie case for their discrimination claim and that the interference allegations were untimely filed.
In Spokane County, PERC Examiner Dianne Ramerman held that Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich did not interfere nor dominate or assist the Spokane County Deputy Sheriff’s Association when he sent an e-mail to the Union.
In Port of Anacortes, PERC Examiner Jamie L. Siegel held that the Port did not unilaterally change a past practice when it ended maintenance mechanic David Bost’s light duty assignment. Examiner Siegel also found that the Port did not discriminate against Mr. Bost for union activity when it ended his light duty assignment.
In Seattle School District, PERC Examiner Ramerman held that the Employer refused to bargain in good faith by failing to timely provide relevant information requested by the International Union of Operating Engineers in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and (4). Examiner Ramerman noted that “although the [E]mployer acknowledged the [Union’s information] request two weeks after the request was made, the [E]mployer ‘dropped the ball’ and took no additional action for approximately five weeks from late August 2013 until early October 2013.”
In Port of Anacortes, PERC Examiner Page Garcia dismissed an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint filed against the Port of Anacortes for unilaterally changing the health insurance benefits of Union members. Examiner Garcia found that although the Port of Anacortes had “failed to maintain the status quo by changing the health insurance benefits offered to bargaining unit employees” and had “presented the change in health insurance benefits as a fait accompli”, the Employer “met its burden of proof to support its defense of business necessity.”
A ‘triggering event’ signals important deadlines for filing unfair labor practice complaints or else a party may risk losing the opportunity to file a complaint with the Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC). In Lake Washington School District, the Commission found that the Examiner Page A. Garcia erred in dismissing the IBEW Local 46’s skimming complaint as untimely and beyond the statute of limitations. The Commission explained that, in a skimming case, the triggering event for the statute of limitations is when bargaining unit work is assigned to non-bargaining unit employees, and not when the union receives notice of the employer’s intent to transfer the work, as the Examiner had concluded.
Both employer and union can violate their good faith bargaining obligations under the state collective bargaining laws when one party advances proposals prior to interest arbitration that are regressive from proposals made earlier in negotiations. In Spokane County (Spokane County Deputy Sheriff’s Association), PERC Examiner Stephen W. Irvin found, and the Commission affirmed, that the Spokane County Deputy Sheriff’s Association breached its good faith bargaining obligations by submitting a regressive wage proposal after impasse and shortly before the parties’ scheduled interest arbitration hearing.
In Int'l Union of Police Ass'n, Local 748 v. Kitsap County, the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One held that a trial court erred when it awarded attorney fees incurred in an Unfair Labor Practice ULP (ULP) proceeding to the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office Lieutenant’s Association under the state wage law.
In Currier v. Northland Servs., Inc., the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One (court) upheld a trial court decision that Northland Services Inc. (NSI) was liable for the retaliatory discharge of an independent contractor under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The court found that “[b]ecuase the WLAD applies to this case and substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and conclusions that retaliation was a substantial factor in NSI’s termination of . . . [the contractor,] we affirm the trial court’s judgment.”
