April 15, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Busey v. Richland School District, the Eastern District of Washington found that a reasonable jury could conclude that a Superintendent had been wrongfully discriminated against for his extramarital affair with a para-educator. In his complaint, the Superintendent alleged the district had violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), in terminating him because of his extramarital affair. The district court found that because the Superintendent had provided direct evidence of this claim and a reasonable jury could find that the school district’s proffered reasons were pretextual, the claim could survive summary judgment and move forward.
Filed Under: Employment Discrimination
April 15, 2016
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Central Washington University, the Commission concluded that the existing standard for determining whether an employer had a duty to bargain a decision to contract out bargaining unit work was confusing and adopted a new standard. The Commission also affirmed the Examiner’s decision that (1) the employer contracted out bargaining unit work and (2) that the employer failed to provide requested information. The Commission reversed the Examiner’s decision and found that the employer circumvented the union and modified the remedy to include a monetary remedy for the employer’s failure to bargain the decision to contract out bargaining unit work.
Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
April 15, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Michelbrink v. Wash. State Patrol, Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals allowed a state trooper to proceed to trial in his civil suit for damages stemming from a compression fracture and bulged disk in his back under the “deliberate intention” exception of the Industrial Insurance Act (IIA). In his complaint, the trooper claimed that his employer’s knowledge that an injury would occur was enough to qualify under the deliberate intention exception. The Court of Appeals found that while every element of the deliberate intention exception should be narrowly construed, an employer does not need actual knowledge of the specific injury that occurs to be found liable.
Filed Under: Workers Compensation
April 15, 2016
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In State – Washington State Patrol, Examiner Page A. Garcia held that the State failed to provide relevant information regarding documents and communication between the State and a consultant concerning a compensation survey, which was requested by the Union for contract negotiations. PERC further held that by the State’s refusal to make individuals from the consultant’s firm available to the Union or, in the alternative, provide the Union the information it was seeking from the consultant regarding the compensation survey, the employer breached its good faith bargaining obligations.
Filed Under: Duty to Provide Information
January 15, 2016
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Mason General Hospital (Mason Public Hospital District 1), Examiner Irvin held that the employer did not refuse to bargain by unilaterally installing a new security camera in the Diagnostic Imaging Department. Examiner Irvin found that the hospital’s decision to install the new security camera was not a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
January 15, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Harrison Owens
In Predisik v. Spokane School District No. 81, the Washington State Supreme Court found that public employees did not have a right to privacy in public records that contained information relating to investigations of potential misconduct, but did not identify the specific allegations being investigated. In their lawsuits, two public school employees sued the District to prevent the disclosure of a leave letter and spreadsheets to two media outlets who requested the materials. The Supreme Court held that Washington law did not prevent the disclosure of the un-redacted materials, because they did not violate the employees’ privacy rights.
Filed Under: Privacy Rights
January 14, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Harrison Owens
In Demetrio v. Sakuma Brothers Farms, Inc., the Washington State Supreme Court found that piece rate workers must be paid for rest breaks, and they must be paid the higher rate of pay, either the minimum wage or the regular rate of pay. In their complaint, agricultural workers paid based on the number of “pieces” of output they produced asked the Court to determine whether they were entitled to paid rest breaks, and if so how much they must be paid. The Court stated that piece rate workers were entitled to paid rest breaks under Washington law, and the rate had to be the greater of workers’ regular rate of pay or the applicable minimum wage.
Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases
September 9, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Washington State Ferries, the Commission affirmed Examiner Slone-Gomez’s decision that the Inland Boatmen’s Union of the Pacific did not refuse to bargain in violation of RCW 47.64.130(2)(c). The Commission stated that the Washington State Ferries was unable to prove that the Union negotiated to impasse on a non-mandatory subject of bargaining.
Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining
August 25, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Snohomish County, the Commission held that the Washington State Council of County and City Employees (WSCCCE) was inappropriately allowed to intervene in a representation case initiated by the Snohomish County Juvenile Court Supervisors Association (union). The Commission also held that the petitioned-for bargaining unit was appropriate and remanded to the Executive Director to conduct a unit determination election to establish the preferred bargaining unit arrangement of the employees.
Filed Under: Representation and Unit Determination
August 21, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Jordan Jones
In Washington State University, Examiner Whitney held that the University did not refuse to bargain when it reduced the wages of its employees in the Facilities Operations, Custodial Services unit. Examiner Whitney stated that the University’s changes to the bargaining unit’s wages were made in conformance with their current 2013-2015 CBA.
