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.
Filed Under: Uncategorized
April 17, 2024
By Jim Cline
In a decision using scorching language in Snohomish County, Examiner Leonard entirely dismissed all 11 claims the Snohomish County Corrections Guild filed against Snohomish County. While the claims varied in issue, Examiner Leonard found that for each allegation, the Guild did not support their claims with sufficient evidence, failing to upload their burden of proof. The Guild’s conduct was characterized as reprehensible by the Examiner as he discussed whether to impose attorney fees for multiple frivolous claims.
Filed Under: Discipline, Duty to Bargain
April 17, 2024
By Jim Cline
In Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Examiner Elizabeth Snyder found that the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (Employer) unilaterally changed working conditions for two Washington Federation of State Employees (Union) employees when it removed their new positions from the bargaining unit. The Employer’s unilateral change constituted a refusal to bargain because it changed the conditions of the employees’ employment and impacted working conditions, which are a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Filed Under: Duty to Bargain
April 15, 2024
By Jim Cline
In City of Seattle, Examiner Christopher Casillas dismissed a complaint after finding the Complainant failed to satisfy each element necessary for a discrimination prima facie case. The Complainant had been placed on administrative reassignment while the City investigated an incident involving Complainant; however, he did not lose any pay, leave, or benefits while on reassignment, and thus, failed to prove a deprivation of rights.
Filed Under: Discrimination and Retaliation
April 12, 2024
By Jim Cline
In Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Examiner Casillas dismissed the case, holding that Complainant failed to prove her employer had discriminated against her for engaging in a protected activity. Examiner Casillas found that management had engaged in multiple non-disciplinary attempts to correct Complainant’s behavior over several years and that Complainant failed to provide any evidence such corrective attempts were the result of union animus.
Filed Under: Discipline
April 12, 2024
By Jim Cline
In Spokane School District, Examiner Hickey held that the Spokane Education Association had violated its duty of fair representation by withholding requested information from an investigatory meeting. Complainant had relied on the Union representative’s promise to share notes, but the representative later refused without citing any legitimate interest for the withholding.
Filed Under: Representation and Unit Determination
April 10, 2024
By Jim Cline
In Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Examiner Greer dismissed the complaint, holding that the Employer did not discriminate against the Complainant, who alleged she was terminated after communicating her intent to join a grievance. However, Examiner Greer found the Employer’s reasons for termination “were not pretextual for discrimination, nor substantially motivated by union animus.”
Filed Under: Discrimination and Retaliation
December 19, 2023
By Jim Cline and Abagail Klonsinski
In King County Metro, Examiner Todd granted summary judgment for the Union, finding that the Union did not breach their duty of fair representation (DFR) when it withdrew his grievance from arbitration. The Complainant ultimately failed to produce evidence which showed the Union had acted in an arbitrary manner or bad faith when making their decision, so summary judgment was appropriate in favor of the Union.
Filed Under: Uncategorized
December 19, 2023
By Jim Cline and Abagail Klonsinski
In King County, Arbitrator Khoury sustained the grievance of a law enforcement officer in part, holding there had been failures on both sides, but that termination was not supported when one of the factors used to escalate discipline violated the principle of double jeopardy.
