City of Connell, Decision 10352  (PECB, 2009)



                         STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                   
          BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
                                   
                                   
In the matter of the petition of:  )
                                   )
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING   )
ENGINEERS, LOCAL 280               )    CASE 22299-E-09-3437
                                   )
Involving certain employees of:    )    DECISION 10352 - PECB 
                                   )
CITY OF CONNELL                    )    DIRECTION OF CROSS-CHECK
                                   )
___________________________________)

     Rick Pound, International Representative, for the union.

     Kevin Wesley, Labor Consultant, for the employer.

On February 27, 20009, the International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 280, filed a petition, seeking certification as
exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the City
of Connell. An investigation conference was conducted by telephone
conference call on March 30, 2009. The parties disagreed about the
method to determine the question concerning representation.  The
dispute concerning methodology was referred to the Executive Director.

ISSUE

The sole issue to be determined at this time is whether use of the
cross-check method is appropriate in this case.  The union stated a
preference for a cross-check, while the employer objected to the use
of the cross-check procedure.  The Executive Director rules that a
cross-check is appropriate.
  
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

RCW 41.56.060 sets forth the methods for determining questions
concerning representation:

     The Commission shall determine the bargaining representative by
     (1) examination of organization membership rolls, (2)
     comparison of signatures on organization bargaining
     authorization cards, or (3) by conducting an election
     specifically therefor.

The Commission's rules limit the availability of the "cross-check"
procedure, as follows:

          WAC 391-25-391 SPECIAL PROVISION--PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.  (1)
     Where only one organization is seeking certification as the
     representative of unrepresented employees, and the showing of
     interest submitted in support of the petition indicates that
     the organization has been authorized by in excess of seventy
     percent of the employees to act as their representative for the
     purposes of collective bargaining, the executive director may
     issue a direction of cross-check.
          (2) A direction of cross-check and other rulings in the
     proceedings up to the issuance of tally are interim orders, and
     may only be appealed to the commission by objections under WAC
     391-25-590 after the cross-check.  An exception is made for
     rulings on whether the employer or employees are subject to the
     jurisdiction of the commission, which may be appealed under WAC 
     391-25-660.

(emphasis added).  The general preference for elections occasionally
expressed by employers is not sufficient to disregard the statute
and rule.

In City of Redmond, Decision 1367-A (PECB, 1982) and numerous
subsequent decisions, the Commission and the Executive Director have
refused to ignore the cross-check option (or to write it out of the
statute). 

ANALYSIS

Employers frequently allege that employees were not aware of what
they were signing, and should therefore be allowed to vote in an
election.  The Executive Director rejects this argument. The showing
of interest is confidential under WAC 391-25-110, and cannot be the
subject of a hearing.

The wording on the authorization cards submitted as the showing of
interest in this case clearly indicate that, by signing the card,
the employee wishes to be represented by the International Union of
Operating Engineers, Local 280 for the purposes of collective
bargaining.  Just as people can be expected to attach importance to
checks, contracts, and other documents they sign in their course of
their personal business affairs, employees can be expected to read
and give importance to authorization cards they sign for a union. 

Examination of the case file indicates that the union submitted a
showing of interest in excess of the 70 percent required by WAC
391-25-391.  If employees desire to withdraw their authorization
cards in advance of a cross-check, the procedure for doing so is
detailed in WAC 391-25-410(2).


NOW, THEREFORE, it is

                               ORDERED
                                   
1.   The employer shall immediately supply the Commission with
     copies of documents from its employment records which bear the
     signatures of the employees on the eligibility list stipulated
     by the parties. 
     
2.   A cross-check of records shall be made by the staff of the
     Public Employment Relations Commission in the appropriate
     bargaining unit described as: 

          ALL FULL-TIME AND REGULAR PART-TIME EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY
          OF CONNELL IN PUBLIC WORKS, CITY HALL, PLANNING OFFICE AND
          POLICE COURT, EXCLUDING SUPERVISORS, CONFIDENTIAL
          EMPLOYEES, UNIFORMED EMPLOYEES AND ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES.

     to determine whether a majority of the employees in that
     bargaining unit have authorized the International Union of
     Operating Engineers, Local 280, to represent them for purposes
     of collective bargaining.

Issued at Olympia, Washington, on the  31st  day of March, 2009.

                         PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION



                         CATHLEEN CALLAHAN, Executive Director


This order may be appealed by filing
timely objections with the Commission
pursuant to WAC 391-25-590.