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.
Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
August 17, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Sarah Derry
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.
Filed Under: Scope of Bargaining
August 14, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Sarah Derry
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.
Filed Under: Scope of Bargaining
August 13, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Sarah Derry
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.”
Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining
July 29, 2015
By Christopher Casillas and Sarah Derry
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.
Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining, Scope of Bargaining
July 24, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Garcia v. Cintas Corp. No. 3, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a Washington District Court’s dismissal of an employee’s claim that her employer failed to accommodate her disability in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). In her complaint, the employee claimed that her employer failed to accommodate her wrist injury after it worsened months after the injury first occurred. The District Court found that the employee did not provide enough evidence that she notified her employer that her current work would aggravate her injury or that she was substantially limited, so it dismissed her case. The Court of Appeals agreed with the dismissal of her case, and affirmed the District Court’s decision.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
July 22, 2015
By Reba Weiss and Harrison Owens
In Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1, et al. v. City of Camden, et al., a New Jersey District Court dismissed several officers’ claims that they had been retaliated against, and one officer’s claim that his FMLA rights had been denied by the City. In their complaint, the officers claimed that several defendants had retaliated against them or interfered with their FMLA rights after they spoke out against a “directed patrol” policy. The District Court dismissed all of their claims because the officers failed to show that their poor performance under the policy was not the primary reason for their transfers. The Court also found that there was no evidence that the defendants denied one of the officers his rights under the FMLA or harmed him.
