March 24, 2025
By Jim Cline and Sam Hagshenas
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.
Filed Under: Duty to Bargain, Scope of Bargaining
July 30, 2024
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
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.
Filed Under: Representation and Unit Determination
May 17, 2024
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In, Nathaniel Bickley v. Snohomish County Corrections Guild, the PERC Examiner dismissed a complaint that alleged the Guild breached its duty of fair representation by failing to provide representation to a bargaining unit member during a disciplinary hearing and grievance proceeding. The Examiner concluded that the complaining employee failed to ever seek assistance and even expressly refused assistance at several points.
Filed Under: Uncategorized
May 17, 2024
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In Tiffany Diggins v. Seattle Housing Authority, a PERC Examiner ruled that the complaining employee failed to prove employer discrimination when she alleged that her employer interfered with her connectivity and access to computer software required for work. The Examiner held that her IT access issues did not rise to the level of being an “adverse action” upon which a discrimination charge could be based.
Filed Under: Employment Discrimination
May 15, 2024
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
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.
Filed Under: Representation and Unit Determination
May 15, 2024
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, a PERC Examiner dismissed a complaint alleging AFSCME breach of its duty of fair representation (DFR) when failed to facilitate a request for information. The Examiner reasoned that the failure was due to a mistake in interpreting the nature of the request, as thus, was mere negligence and not unlawful union interference.
Filed Under: Uncategorized
May 13, 2024
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
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.
Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining
May 13, 2024
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In City of Seattle, [City of Seattle, Decision 137535-A (PECB, 2024)] the PERC Commission overturned an errant Examiner ruling and held that the complaining employee suffered an “adverse action” upon which a discrimination claim could be made when he was placed on administrative leave with pay pending an investigation. The Commission partially overturned the prior dismissal of the case on these grounds by the Examiner who held that administrative leave could not be the basis for a discrimination charge. Nonetheless, the employee won that battle but lost the war when the Commission dismissed the complaint for lack of adequate proof of discriminatory intent.
Filed Under: Employment Discrimination
May 3, 2024
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
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.
Filed Under: Bad Faith Bargaining, Scope of Bargaining
May 3, 2024
By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In Hubert Gilmore v Teamsters 839, a Benton County corrections officer filed a ULP complaint against his Union alleging that it breached its duty of fair representation when it declined to pursue a grievance related to a newly adopted agreement that affected shift hours. Examiner Leonard of PERC dismissed the complaint because the corrections officer failed to ever seek Union assistance on the matter.
