March 22, 2013
By Jim Cline
Finding that controversial, Kitsap County Deputy Prosecutor Jacquelyn Aufderheide violated PERC requirements including an after-the-fact “torpedoing” of a tentative agreement reached between the Kitsap County labor negotiator and the Dispatchers’ Guild, in a recently released Kitsap County Decision 11675, PERC Hearing Examiner Guy Coss cited Aufderheide with a ULP and other rule violations.
Filed Under: Duty to Bargain, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
March 15, 2013
By Jim Cline
Just last month, we wrote about a recent Ninth Circuit decision involving the Oregon Marion County Sheriff's Office, in which the Ninth Circuit ruled that the enforcement of an arbitration award might be an enforceable "property interest" within the meaning of the due process clause. In that same article, we noted that this might provide labor organization an additional tool for enforcing arbitration awards. We also noted the 2009 Kitsap County Deputy Sheriffs’ Guild Supreme Court decision holding that "final and binding" decisions were, well, "final and binding."
Filed Under: Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
March 8, 2013
By David E. Worley
In Woodbury v. City of Seattle (2012 Wash. App LEXIS 47), the Washington Appeals Court upheld the dismissal of a Superior Court complaint by a police officer regarding retaliation for a whistleblower action. The Appellate Court held that under the relevant statute, a local government employee may only seek administrative relief initially, and Civil Courts will only be involved when appealing that administrative relief.
Filed Under: Constitutional Rights, Political Rights
February 19, 2013
By Jim Cline
A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision made to provide labor organizations an additional tool in their efforts to enforce final and binding arbitration awards. As explained in our recent article, in addition to enforcing such awards under State contract law, labor organizations in concert with the affected employee, may be able to argue that refusal to abide by "final and binding" arbitration awards also constitute a violation of constitutional due process rights.
Filed Under: Uncategorized
February 19, 2013
By Cynthia McNabb
On January 6, 2013, Officer Tam Guthrie of the Mountlake Terrace Police Department was ordered reinstated to his position as an Officer for the City of Mountlake Terrace. Arbitrator Mark Brennan also awarded that the City of Mountlake Terrace pay full back pay and benefits to Tam Guthrie from the date of termination based on his findings that the City of Mountlake Terrace did not have just cause to terminate the longtime employee.
Filed Under: Uncategorized
January 29, 2013
By Kate Acheson
In LaCoursiere v. CamWest Development, Inc., the Washington Appeals Court dismissed an employee’s claims under the Wage Rebate Act (“WRA”), RCW 49.52. The employee, Shaun LaCoursiere, claimed his employer, CamWest Development, violated the WRA by depositing a portion of his bonuses in an investment account and by reimbursing only 60 percent – the vested portion – of the investment account upon his termination.
Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases
January 11, 2013
By Kate Acheson
The Washington State Supreme Court found in Wash. State Nurses Ass'n v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., that employees were inadequately compensated for missing 15-minute breaks mandated by their Collective Bargaining Agreement when they worked over 40 hours in a week, because they were entitled to overtime pay for 10 of those minutes (the state-required break time).
Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases
January 3, 2013
By Kate Acheson
When a heterosexual delivery truck driver sued for being called “Big Gay Al” at work, the Washington State Court of Appeals found, in Davis v. Fred's Appliance Inc.,that the perception of homosexuality is not protected by Washington’s law against discrimination (“WLAD”), RCW 49.60.
Filed Under: Employment Discrimination, Sexual Orientation Discrimination
December 14, 2012
By Kate Acheson
In Kiona Benton School District, Decision 11563 (EDUC, 2012), the union alleged that the employer committed an unfair labor practice, in retaliating against three, school district employees who exercised their statutory right to participate in an earlier PERC ULP proceeding. PERC hearing examiner Steve Irvin concluded that even though the employees had engaged in protected activities and the employer's layoffs arguably violated the collective bargaining agreement, the union did not carry its burden of proof that the employer actions were pretextual.
Filed Under: Discrimination and Retaliation, Employment Discrimination
December 11, 2012
By Kate Acheson
In Sterling Savings Bank v. Stanley, a Washington District Court rejected Sterling Bank’s argument that receipt of federal Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, restricts them from making any payment to its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mrs. Heidi Stanley, after her termination. The Court found that TARP was not intended to prevent monetary recovery in discrimination suits like Mrs. Stanley’s.
