Pierce County, Decision 10507 ( PECB, 2009)

 

STATE OF WASHINGTON

 

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

 

 

In the matter of the petition of:

 

TEAMSTERS UNION, LOCAL 117

 

Involving certain employees of:

 

PIERCE COUNTY

 

CASE 22603-E-09-3486

DECISION 10507 - PECB

 

CASE 22604-E-09-3487

DECISION 10508-PECB

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 

 

 

 

 

Spencer Nathan Thal, General Counsel, for the union, Teamsters, Local 117.

 

Joe Carrillo, Labor Relations Manager, for the employer.

 

 

On July 23, 2009, Teamsters, Local 117 (Teamsters) filed two petitions seeking certification as exclusive bargaining representative for two separate groups of employees employed by Pierce County (employer) within the Sheriff’s Department.  Case 22603-E-09-3486, involves the forensic investigators, and Case 22604-E-09-3487 involves the property officers.  Both groups were part of a larger bargaining unit disclaimed by the Teamsters on December 1, 2008 after election notices were issued in case 22027-E-08-3400, a decertification petition.

 

On July 28, 2009, the Commission’s Representation Coordinator sent a deficiency letter asking why both petitions should not be dismissed as untimely since they were filed before the one-year period required under WAC 391-25-450.

 

The Teamsters responded on August 3, 2009, claiming that the petitions are timely because WAC 391-25-450 does not specifically prohibit the filing of a petition seeking to represent a unit that includes a subdivision of the original bargaining unit.

 

ISSUE

 

Should both representation petitions be dismissed as untimely because they were filed before the one-year period required in WAC 391-25-450?

 

The Executive Director rejects the Teamsters’ assertion that its petitions are timely.  Because the union seeks to represent employees who were included in the bargaining unit disclaimed by the Teamsters less than one year ago, both petitions are dismissed as untimely.

 

APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPALS

 

The Commission has several rules that deal with disclaimers and the limitations for filing a petition after a disclaimer has been filed.  WAC 391-25-450 states:

An organization may disclaim a bargaining unit and have its name removed from the ballot by written notice filed and served as required by WAC 391-08-120.  If a disclaimer is filed after the issuance of a notice of election, the organization filing the disclaimer shall not seek to be certified in the bargaining unit for a period of at least one year.

 

(emphasis added)

 

 

RCW 41.56.070 creates a one-year certification bar period “of a certification or attempted certification”.  The Commission adopted 391-25-030 on the certification bar period as follows:

 

            (2)  A “certification bar” exists where a certification has been issued by the agency, so that a petition involving the same bargaining unit or any subdivision of that bargaining unit will only be timely if it is filed:

            (a)  More than twelve months following the date of the certification of an exclusive bargaining representative or

            (b)   More than twelve months following the date of the latest election or cross-check in which the employees failed to select an exclusive bargaining representative.

 

ANALYSIS

 

On March 31, 1986, Teamsters Union, Local 599 was certified as exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit in Pierce County, Decision 2426 (PECB, 1986).   In 2003, Teamsters, Local 599 merged into Teamsters, Local 117.  After the merger, Teamsters, Local 117 became the exclusive bargaining representative for that bargaining unit.

 

On October 9, 2008, a petition was filed seeking to decertify Teamsters, Local 117 as the exclusive bargaining representative in case 22027-E-08-3400.  During the processing of that case, the parties stipulated to matters and an election was scheduled for December 12, 2008.  The bargaining unit was described as:

 

All full-time and regular part-time employees of Pierce County Sheriff’s Department in the following classifications: Accounting Assistant 2, Administrative Aide, Administrative Assistant, Crime Research Analyst, Department Information Technology Specialist 1,2, 3, Forensic Investigator, Forensic Investigator Trainee,  Forensic Technician Lead Forensic Investigator, Legal Assistant 1, 2, 3, Office Assistant 1, 2, 3 and Property Room Officer, excluding supervisors, confidential employees and all other employees.

 

 

On November 25, 2008, election notices were mailed to the employer, union, and all employees eligible to vote in the election.  On December 1, 2008, the Teamsters filed a letter with the Commission disclaiming interest in representing the bargaining unit.   On December 10, 2008, the Commission issued Pierce County, Decision 10225-A (PECB, 2008), revoking the Teamsters’ certification and closing the case.

 

Teamsters now seek to represent the forensic investigators and the property officers in two separate petitions filed on July 23, 2009.  Both classifications were part of the original bargaining unit disclaimed by Teamsters.  The Commission’s Representation Coordinator sent a deficiency letter asking why the Commission should not dismiss both petitions as untimely since they were filed before the one-year period required under WAC 391-25-450.

 

Teamsters responded on August 3, 2009, claiming its petitions are timely because the Commission’s rule on disclaimers WAC 391-25-450 does not specifically prohibit the filing of a petition involving a subdivision of the original bargaining unit, whereas WAC 391-25-030(2) expressly limits petitions filed on subdivisions of bargaining units.  It is the Teamsters’ position that this distinction permits a disclaiming union the ability to file a petition seeking to represent a subdivision of its prior bargaining unit without regard to the one-year bar outlined in WAC 391-25-450.

 

The Executive Director rejects this argument.  WAC 391-25-450 clearly states that if a disclaimer is filed after the issuance of a notice of election, the organization filing the disclaimer shall not seek to be certified in the bargaining unit for a period of at least one year.  There is no need to distinguish in the rule whether it is appropriate to file for a subdivision of the original bargaining unit.  WAC 391-25-450 clearly imposes a one-year bar on the particular organization that waits to disclaim its bargaining unit until after the notice of election is issued.  The fact that the rule fails to include the “subdivision” language does not render moot the overriding principle of WAC 391-25-450.  Although the disclaimer process allows the parties to avoid a certification, the process is not designed to permit elections among the same employees within a year of the disclaimer.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Teamsters could have disclaimed interest in the bargaining unit at any time during the processing of the case, but it delayed filing its disclaimer until after the election notice was issued.  In doing so, the union is now prohibited from seeking representation of the same bargaining unit or a subdivision of that unit for a period of one year from the date its disclaimer was received by the Commission.  Therefore, both petitions are dismissed as untimely.

 

ORDER

 

The petitions filed by Teamsters, Local 117 in Case 22603-E-09-3485 and Case 22604-E-09-3487 are dismissed.

 

Issued at Olympia, Washington, this  21st  day of September, 2009.

 

                                                            PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

 

 

 

                                                            CATHLEEN CALLAHAN, Executive Director

 

This order will be the final order of the agency

unless a notice of appeal is filed with the

Commission under WAC 391-25-660.