City of Seattle, Decision 10041 (PECB, 2008)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
SEATTLE POLICE OFFICERS GUILD, )
)
Complainant, ) CASE 21561-U-08-5493
)
vs. ) DECISION 10041 - PECB
)
CITY OF SEATTLE, ) PRELIMINARY RULING
) AND ORDER OF PARTIAL
Respondent. ) DISMISSAL
___________________________________)
On February 28, 2008, the Seattle Police Officers Guild (union)
filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public
Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming the
City of Seattle (employer) as respondent. The complaint was
reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,(fn:1) and a deficiency notice issued on
March 10, 2008, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that
a cause of action existed at that time for some of the allegations
of the complaint. The union was given a period of 21 days in which
to file and serve an amended complaint, or face dismissal of the
defective allegations. Nothing further has been received from the
union.
____________________
fn:1 At this stage of the proceedings, all of the facts alleged in
the complaint are assumed to be true and provable. The question at
hand is whether, as a matter of law, the complaint states a claim
for relief available through unfair labor practice proceedings
before the Public Employment Relations Commission.
The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the defective
allegations of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action,
and finds a cause of action for the allegations of the complaint as
fully set forth below in the preliminary ruling. The employer must
file and serve its answer to the allegations contained in the
preliminary ruling within 21 days following the date of this decision.
DISCUSSION
The allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with
employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), domination or
assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.56.140(2), and refusal
to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.100 and RCW 41.56.140(4), by
(1) actions of employer officials on February 26, 2008, in
circumventing the union through direct dealing with employees
represented by the union, by (a) presenting incomplete, inaccurate,
and intentionally misleading collective bargaining proposals and
information to bargaining unit members without the presence of the
union and before presenting the same proposals and information to
the union, and (b) presenting an economic offer to bargaining unit
members without the presence of the union and before presenting the
same offer to the union; (2) breach of its good faith bargaining
obligations by (a) its aforementioned actions on February 26, 2008,
and (b) a course of conduct designed to frustrate the collective
bargaining process, as specifically alleged in paragraph 2.18 of the
statement of facts.
The allegations of the complaint concerning employer interference
with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and refusal to
bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) state a cause of action
under WAC 391-45-110(2) for further unfair labor practice
proceedings before the Commission.
The deficiency notice stated that it was not possible to conclude
that a cause of action existed for allegations of the complaint
concerning employer domination or assistance of a union in violation
of RCW 41.56.140(2) and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW
41.56.100. Those allegations of the complaint are defective.
Chapter 391-45 WAC governs the filing and processing of unfair labor
practice complaints. Complaints must conform to WAC 391-45-050.
WAC 391-45-050 CONTENTS OF COMPLAINT
Each complaint charging unfair labor practices shall contain,
in separate numbered paragraphs:
. . . .
(2) Clear and concise statements of the facts constituting
the alleged unfair labor practices, including times, dates,
places and participants in occurrences.
RCW 41.56.140(2)
The complaint appears to allege employer domination or assistance of
a union in violation of RCW 41.56.140(2) (domination). The union
did not check the box on the complaint form alleging employer
domination. The complaint's only references to the allegation of
employer domination are parenthetical citations in the cause of
action headings and in paragraphs 2.16 and 2.17 of the statement of
facts. Aside from the numerical references to RCW 41.56.140(2), the
statement of facts and the remedy only allege employer interference
and refusal to bargain. The complaint is unclear regarding the
allegation of employer domination or assistance of a union.
RCW 41.56.100
The complaint alleges employer refusal to bargain in violation of
RCW 41.56.100. The union's purpose in citing this statute is
unclear. Under RCW 41.56.100, a public employer has a duty to
engage in collective bargaining with an exclusive bargaining
representative. However, the Commission adjudicates allegations of
employer refusal to bargain under RCW 41.56.140(4), not under RCW
41.56.100. The union's use of RCW 41.56.100 to allege an employer
refusal to bargain violation is redundant.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
1. Assuming all of the facts alleged to be true and provable, the
interference and refusal to bargain allegations of the
complaint state a cause of action, summarized as follows:
Employer interference with employee rights in violation of
RCW 41.56.140(1) and refusal to bargain in violation of
RCW 41.56.140(4), by (1) actions of employer officials on
February 26, 2008, in circumventing the union through
direct dealing with employees represented by the union, by
(a) presenting incomplete, inaccurate, and intentionally
misleading collective bargaining proposals and information
to bargaining unit members without the presence of the
union and before presenting the same proposals and
information to the union, and (b) presenting an economic
offer to bargaining unit members without the presence of
the union and before presenting the same offer to the
union; (2) breach of its good faith bargaining obligations
by (a) its aforementioned actions on February 26, 2008,
and (b) a course of conduct designed to frustrate the
collective bargaining process, as specifically alleged in
paragraph 2.18 of the statement of facts.
The above-noted allegations of the complaint will be the
subject of further proceedings under Chapter 391-45 WAC.
2. The City of Seattle shall:
File and serve its answer to the allegations listed in
paragraph 1 of this Order, within 21 days following the
date of this Order.
An answer shall:
a. Specifically admit, deny or explain each fact alleged in
the complaint, except if a respondent states it is without
knowledge of the fact, that statement will operate as a
denial; and
b. Assert any affirmative defenses that are claimed to exist
in the matter.
The answer shall be filed with the Commission at its Olympia
office. A copy of the answer shall be served on the attorney
or principal representative of the person or organization that
filed the complaint. Service shall be completed no later than
the day of filing. Except for good cause shown, a failure to
file an answer within the time specified, or the failure to
file an answer to specifically deny or explain a fact alleged
in the complaint, will be deemed to be an admission that the
fact is true as alleged in the complaint, and as a waiver of a
hearing as to the facts so admitted. WAC 391-45-210.
3. The allegations of the complaint concerning employer domination
or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.56.140(2) are
DISMISSED.
4. The allegations of the complaint concerning employer refusal to
bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.100 are DISMISSED.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 18th day of April 2008.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
DAVID I. GEDROSE, Unfair Labor Practice Manager
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this order will be
the final order of the agency on
any defective allegations unless
a notice of appeal is filed with
the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.