August 7, 2012
By Christopher Casillas
A PERC hearing examiner recently levied a significant financial penalty against Kitsap Transit for unilaterally dropping one of two health insurance plans offered to members of two different bargaining units of drivers for the agency represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union (“ATU”), Local 1384. The case, Kitsap Transit, Decision 11098-A (PECB, 2012) arose back in late 2010 when Kitsap Transit notified ATU, with just a few weeks warning, that it was no longer going to offer one of two insurance plans historically available to the members—the Premera PPO Plan—and that all the members would have to move over to the Group Health Plan. The loss in the plan was a significant reduction in benefits for the group as a whole, as around 50% of the membership was signed up under the PPO plan, which many members strongly preferred over the HMO product offered through Group Health.
Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
August 7, 2012
By Christopher Casillas
In State Fish and Wildlife, Decision 11394 (PSRA, 2012), a hearing examiner with PERC recently granted a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of the State finding that it had not committed an unfair labor practice when it unilaterally decreased wages and health insurance premium contributions by 3% for members of the newly certified Fish and Wildlife Officers’ Guild. The case arose under a distinct set of facts, and under even more unique set of laws, applicable only to most State employees, that PERC found to give the State the authority to force the Guild and its members to be bound by a collective bargaining agreement for which it did not participate or agree upon.
Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
August 1, 2012
By Cynthia McNabb
Workers in Washington State, currently classified by their employer’s as “independent contractors” should be aware that the Washington Supreme Court has recently ruled that some of these workers may actually be “employees” under the Washington Minimum Wage Act and thus entitled to minimum wage and overtime benefits.
Filed Under: Wage and Hour Cases
July 31, 2012
By Mitchell Riese
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified the rights that public employees have to not be retaliated against by a supervisor for testifying in a deposition in the context of a civil rights lawsuit. In the case of Karl v. City of Mountlake Terrace, Martha Karl filed suit against the City of Mountlake Terrace and Assistant Chief of Police Pete Caw. Karl was the Confidential Administrative Assistant to the Chief of Police. In 2008, she was subpoenaed to give deposition testimony in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by former department Sgt. Jonathan Wender. Wender had brought a lawsuit claiming that he had been fired because of his outspoken criticism of the “war on drugs." During her deposition, Karl testified that the chief and assistant chief disapproved of Wender's comments to the press and his outspoken views on the need for drug policy reform, and that Caw had urged the Chief to terminate Wender. Karl also testified that Wender had a reputation for honesty, the chief had a reputation for being dishonest, and Caw had a reputation as a "smooth talker" and "back stabber." After Karl's deposition, Caw was allegedly overheard saying that the police department would have to find a way to the "get rid of her."
