December 11, 2012
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 because they were entitled to overtime pay for 10 of those minutes (the state-required break time), when they worked over 40 hours in a week.
Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases
December 7, 2012
By Jim Cline
The recent ruling of the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Scavone v. Pennsylvania State Police), governing preemployment tattoo policies, addresses some interesting issues and is explained in a recent blog article. Our readers should be aware, that these issues are not controlling, or in any way dispositive of employers separate obligations under collective bargaining laws.
Filed Under: Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
October 12, 2012
By Kate Acheson
In Loeffelholz v. University of Washington, an asbestos office program coordinator at the University of Washington, Debra Loeffelholz, alleged that James Lukehart, her supervisor from 2003 to early 2006, discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation. Loeffelholz claimed the sexual-orientation-based discrimination created a hostile work environment. Upon review, the State Supreme Court found that Loeffelholz’s claims before the enactment of the amendment adding sexual orientation as a protected class in Washington were unrecoverable because the amendment is not retroactive. However, the Court also found that a jury must resolve the questions of fact arising from the last, potentially post-amendment incident.
Filed Under: Employment Discrimination, Sexual Orientation Discrimination
August 28, 2012
By Rick Gautschi
In Watson v. Providence St. Peter Hospital, 193 LRRM 3056, No. C12-5352 BHS, July 18, 2012, W.D. Wa., during March 2012, Carroll Watson (Ms. Watson) filed a complaint in Thurston County, WA, Superior Court against Providence St. Peter Hospital and several agents of the hospital (Providence St. Peter). Although she set forth eight separate claims in the complaint, all eight derived from her allegation that the defendants had denied her meal and rest breaks to which she was entitled. She contended that the denial meant that for extended periods, she had to continue working while she was seated in her own human waste. As a result of doing so, she suffered injuries for which she sought redress. Soon after Ms. Watson filed the complaint, Providence St. Peter, citing the Labor Management Relations Act’s (LMRA’s) provision that confers original jurisdiction over claims that arise out of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), removed the case to federal court. Subsequently, Ms. Watson moved to have the federal court remand the case back to Thurston County Superior Court on the ground that her claims did not require interpretation of provisions in a CBA.
Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases
August 20, 2012
By Rick Gautschi
In Central Washington University, Decision 10967-A (PECB, 2012) during May 2009, the employer indicated that it was considering making changes to the hours of work of certain employees. In October 2009, the union filed a representation petition to include those employees in a bargaining unit. In early May 2010, PERC’s Executive Director dismissed the petition. The following day, the union appealed the dismissal to the Commission and gave notice of the appeal to the employer. Later the same month, the employer announced its decision to reduce the work hours of the employees who were the subject of the representation petition. On June 3, 2010, the union filed an unfair labor practice complaint, alleging that the employer had failed to preserve the status quo and in doing so had unlawfully interfered with the employees’ rights. The following day, the union withdrew its appeal.
Filed Under: Public Sector Collective Bargaining Rights
August 20, 2012
By Rick Gautschi
In University of Washington, Decision 11414 (PSRA, 2012), the University of Washington’s Harborview Medical Center, operated a Patient Access Center (PAC). Employees in the PAC were part of a collective bargaining unit. In 2010, the employer decided to consolidate the operations of the PAC with another unit, into a new Contact Center (CC). Subsequently, the employer informed the PAC’s employees they would have to apply for positions in the CC and would not be part of the bargaining unit.
August 16, 2012
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Tacoma, Decision 11064-A (PECB, 2012), An employer police department, contracted with another police department, to investigate an allegation that one of the employer’s police officers had threatened to kill his wife, another police officer with whom the first officer was allegedly having an affair, and himself. The investigation identified as a material witness, another of the employer police department’s officers. The employer summoned the officer, who allegedly made the threats to an investigatory meeting.
Filed Under: Weingarten Rights
August 9, 2012
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Bellevue, Decision 11435 (PECB, 2012) the union alleged that the employer had committed two unfair labor practices in the collective bargaining process. First, the employer proposed maintaining a “management rights” provision that listed enumerated rights in the existing collective bargaining agreement. When the union proposed deleting the provision, over the union’s objection, the employer insisted on including the provision and on certifying the enumerated items to interest arbitration. Second, the employer bargained to impasse and sought interest arbitration of an attorneys’ fees provision in existing grievance procedure language.
Filed Under: Uncategorized
August 9, 2012
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Seattle (Seattle Police Officers’ Guild), Decision 11291-A (PECB, 2012), a police officer alleged that the employer subjected her to retaliation, discrimination, and a hostile work environment, and that the employer took no action regarding those conditions. Further, she asserted that because it claimed that there was a perceived conflict of interest between the officer and her ex-husband union member, her union failed to file a grievance on her behalf to address the employer’s inaction. In addition, she asserted that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith in declining to file a grievance on her behalf.
Filed Under: Representation and Unit Determination
August 8, 2012
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Seattle, Decision 11413 (PECB, 2012), a union filed a petition seeking to include a group of unrepresented employees of the City of Seattle in an existing bargaining unit. Subsequently, a mail ballot election occurred, the result of which was conclusive in favor of the union. Two eligible voters filed timely election objections. Only one of the objectors voted in the election. The non-voting objector claimed that the ballot was for King County.
