Edmonds Community College, Decision 10250-A (CCOL, 2009)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, )
LOCAL 4254, )
)
Complainant, ) CASE 22084-U-08-5624
)
vs. ) DECISION 10250-A - CCOL
)
EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE )
(COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 23), ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Respondent. ) AND ORDER
_____________________________________)
The Rosen Law Firm, by Jon Howard Rosen, Attorney at Law, for
the union.
Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, by Scott Majors,
Assistant Attorney General, for the employer.
On October 31, 2008, the American Federation of Teachers, Local 4254
(union) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Edmonds
Community College (employer). The complaint alleges employer
interference, discrimination, and refusal to bargain. The
Commission appointed Jamie L. Siegel as the Examiner, and I held a
hearing on March 11 and 12, 2009. The parties filed post-hearing
briefs on or before May 15, 2009.
ISSUES
1. Did the employer unilaterally change a past practice and
refuse to bargain in violation of RCW 28B.52.073(1)(e) when
it failed to inform Margaret West, a long-term, part-time
academic employee, of concerns and work with her to correct
the concerns prior to deciding not to offer her a part-time
teaching contract after the summer quarter of 2008?
2. Did the employer discriminate against Margaret West in
reprisal for protected union activities in violation of RCW
28B.52.073(1)(c) or interfere with employee rights in
violation of RCW 28B.52.073(1)(a) when it did not offer West
a part-time teaching contract after the summer quarter of 2008?
The union failed to establish that the employer maintained a
consistent practice of informing long-term, part-time academic
employees of concerns and working with them to correct the concerns
prior to deciding not to offer them future contracts. As a result,
the employer did not commit a refusal to bargain violation. The
employer did, however, unlawfully discriminate against West and
interfere with employee rights when it decided not to offer West a
part-time teaching contract after summer quarter of 2008.
ISSUE 1 - UNILATERAL CHANGE
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
Washington State law requires a public employer to engage in
collective bargaining with the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees concerning wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment. RCW 28B.52.020(8), RCW 28B.52.030. An
employer commits an unfair labor practice by making a unilateral
change in a mandatory subject of bargaining without offering the
union an opportunity to bargain. RCW 28B.52.073(1)(e); State -
Social and Health Services, Decision 9551-A (PSRA, 2008).
Parties to a collective bargaining agreement may maintain a
well-established procedure relating to a mandatory subject of
bargaining that they do not include in the bargaining agreement.
City of Pasco, Decision 9181-A (PECB, 2008). In such situations, if
the procedures relating to a mandatory subject of bargaining are so
well-understood and implemented by the parties that they constitute
a past practice, a party commits an unfair labor practice if it
unilaterally changes that past practice without fulfilling its
bargaining obligation. Whatcom County, Decision 7288-A (PECB,
2002). To establish a past practice, a party must prove the
following two basic elements: (1) a prior course of conduct, and (2)
an understanding by the parties that such conduct is the proper
response to the circumstances. Kitsap County, Decision 8292-B
(PECB, 2007). The complainant bears the burden of proof in
establishing a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of
bargaining. WAC 391-45-270(1)(a).
ANALYSIS
It is undisputed that the employer did not provide West with notice
of concerns and the opportunity to correct the concerns prior to
deciding not to offer her a future teaching contract. The union
alleges that the employer maintained a consistent past practice of
doing so with part-time faculty members who had taught with the
employer for more than a few quarters. The union argues that the
employer refused to bargain a change in this alleged past practice.
The union failed to establish such a past practice. The union
relies on the testimony of Mary Hale, who served as the employer's
interim vice president for instruction from November 2003 through
June 2006. She retired as a faculty member in December 2001 and
had, as a faculty member, served as the union president for over
five years. Hale testified that if a part-time faculty member had
taught more than three or four quarters and had performance issues,
the dean and the faculty member would talk about the issue, consider
what might need to be done to address it, and explore resources,
including possibly mentoring. She explained that the plans varied
and could be fairly informal or more formalized, depending upon the
dean and the faculty member.
The employer's key witnesses on this point testified clearly and
unequivocally that there was no consistent practice in this area. I
credit their testimony. Marty Cavalluzzi, who took over as the
employer's vice president for instruction and chief academic officer
in July 2006, testified that during his employment the employer has
had no consistent practice in this area. He testified that there
have been times when deans have counseled experienced part-time
faculty of deficiencies prior to not offering them future contracts
and times when they have not. David Chalif has served as the
employer's dean of the math/science division since at least 2000.
He testified that he does not consistently discuss concerns with
experienced part-time faculty members, and he does not consistently
give them the opportunity to correct performance deficiencies.
Chalif has served under four vice presidents of instruction, and
none of them, including Mary Hale, ever communicated an expectation
that he allow a part-time faculty member an opportunity to correct
areas of concern before deciding not to offer the faculty member
another contract.
To constitute a past practice, the conduct must be known and
mutually accepted by the parties. In this case, although deans
sometimes provided part-time faculty with notice of concerns and the
opportunity to correct them, the evidence does not support that this
has been a consistent course of conduct or that the parties reached
an understanding that this approach was the proper response in such
circumstances. Because no consistent prior practice exists that
creates any kind of enforceable expectation between the parties, the
employer did not refuse to bargain a change in practice and did not
commit an unfair labor practice.
ISSUE 2 - DISCRIMINATION
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
Chapter 28B.52 RCW secures the rights of academic employees to
organize and bargain collectively with their community college
employers. RCW 28B.52.070 prohibits employers from discriminating
against employees because they belong to an employee organization or
because they exercise rights under Chapter 28B.52 RCW. RCW
28B.52.073(1)(c) makes it an unfair labor practice for any employer
to "encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization
by discrimination in regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment."
An employer unlawfully discriminates when it takes action against an
employee in reprisal for the employee's exercise of rights protected
by collective bargaining laws. Educational Service District 114,
Decision 4361-A (PECB, 1994). The union maintains the burden of
proof in employer discrimination cases. To prove discrimination,
the union must first set forth a prima facie case by establishing
the following:
1. The employee participated in an activity protected by the
collective bargaining statute, or communicated to the
employer an intent to do so;
2. The employer deprived the employee of some ascertainable
right, benefit, or status; and
3. A causal connection exists between the employee's exercise of
a protected activity and the employer's action.
To prove an employer's motivation for an adverse employment action
was discriminatory, the union must establish that the employer had
knowledge of the employee's union activities. Metropolitan Park
District of Tacoma, Decision 2272 (PECB, 1986), aff'd, Decision
2272-A (PECB, 1986). Ordinarily, the union may use circumstantial
evidence to establish its prima facie case because an employer does
not typically announce a discriminatory motive for its actions.
Clark County, Decision 9127-A (PECB, 2007).
Where the union establishes a prima facie case, it creates a
rebuttable presumption of discrimination. In response to a union's
prima facie case of discrimination, the employer need only
articulate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The employer
does not bear the burden of proof to establish those reasons. Port
of Tacoma, Decision 4626-A (PECB, 1995). Instead, the burden
remains on the union to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the disputed action was in retaliation for the employee's
exercise of statutory rights. Clark County, Decision 9127-A. The
union meets this burden by proving either that the employer's
reasons were pretextual or that the employer's actions were
substantially motivated by the employee's protected activity.
Educational Service District 114, Decision 4361-A.
ANALYSIS
West worked for the employer as a part-time academic employee in the
English department for over 20 years. Since 1997 she has been
actively involved in the union, serving in leadership roles for the
local and state union. West held the local union offices of vice
president for political action from 1997 to 2006 and vice president
for communications from 2006 to 2008. She held the state union
offices of vice president for the committee on political education
from 2001 to 2005 and vice president for legal defense from 2005 to
at least the time of the hearing.
West also led, or participated as a member of, union bargaining
teams that negotiated four full collective bargaining agreements and
two sets of bargaining re-openers with the employer. During the
2007-08 academic year, West participated in negotiations between the
union and the employer and served as one of the three union
representatives on the contract administration committee (CAC), a
labor-management committee that met at least monthly. In early
March 2008, West announced she was running for president of the
union.(fn:1)
____________________
fn:1 On April 30 the nominations closed and West learned she was
running unopposed.
Also in March or early April 2008, Joan Penney, the employer's dean
of the humanities and social sciences division who supervised the
English department, decided not to offer West a contract to teach
after summer quarter.(fn:2) In consultation with Cavalluzzi, Penney's
supervisor, Penney decided not to inform West of the decision until
after the college accreditation visit that was scheduled for the
latter part of April. In a meeting on May 2, 2008, Penney informed
West that she would not be offered a part-time teaching contract
after summer quarter.
____________________
fn:2 Penney was not sure of the specific date. She acknowledged
that the time frame of her decision "straddled" her learning that
West was running for union president.
UNION'S PRIMA FACIE CASE
The union established a prima facie case as described below.
Employee's Protected Union Activity
West served as an active and visible union leader. In addition to
the formal leadership roles she held which are described above, West
also served as a vocal advocate for union issues, particularly
issues impacting part-time faculty. On an ongoing basis West raised
concerns when she perceived that bargaining agreement provisions or
practices were not being implemented appropriately.
West and another part-time faculty member/union leader met with
Penney and one of the department co-chairs in August 2007, within
the first two months of Penney's employment. During that meeting
West shared with Penney her history of involvement with the union.
West also provided Penney with copies of some of her e-mails from
the 2006-2007 academic year. The e-mails concerned scheduling,
assignments, and contracts.
In some of the e-mails, West shared her perspective with faculty and
management about the context in which specific collective bargaining
agreement provisions were negotiated. In one e-mail sent to faculty
members, the interim dean, and Cavalluzzi about assurance of
employment (AOE) contracts, West concludes with the following: "I
hope this explanation is helpful. If there is still confusion,
please let me know. We are in contract negotiations now, and we
have the opportunity to clarify the language of the AOE if
necessary."
In another e-mail West sent to the interim dean with a copy to a
department co-chair, Cavalluzzi, and then-union president Barbara
Maly, West clarified that her prior e-mails relating to scheduling
voiced union concerns not personal concerns. She wrote, in part:
Over the last ten years, I have also volunteered thousands of
hours to the union on campus because I care very much about
my full- and part-time faculty colleagues. Consequently,
when I learn that a policy or practice in my department is
being ignored, I feel it's my responsibility to learn the
facts and at least seek clarification of the situation; this
is what Marcia and I did unsuccessfully when we came to see
you several weeks ago, and this is what I tried to do when I
recently emailed Greg about summer hiring.
My concern is the equitable allocation of courses according
to what has been consistent past practice in the English
department; my concern is not, and has never been, personal.
. . .
I sincerely hope that we can move beyond the erroneous idea
that this is a personal quarrel to a discussion of the issues.
During the 2007-2008 academic year, West pressed Penney on an issue
involving professional development funds for part-time employees.(fn:3)
The union raised the issue at a CAC meeting. West also continued
to challenge the English department co-chairs, who are also
bargaining unit employees, on scheduling and staffing issues.
____________________
fn:3 Penney set aside the funds to pay part-time faculty to attend
department meetings, a purpose specifically authorized by the
bargaining agreement.
These issues that West raised relating to professional development
funds, scheduling, and staffing fall within the broad definition of
subjects for collective bargaining in RCW 28B.52.020(8). Although
some of West's positions may have ultimately found no substantive
support in the collective bargaining agreement, her advocacy still
falls within the scope of activity protected by Chapter 28B.52 RCW.
Furthermore, although some of West's colleagues within the
bargaining unit may not have shared the perspectives she advocated,
she was advocating the union position as evidenced by some of the
e-mails quoted above as well as Penney's testimony detailed below.
The employer argues that West was not engaged in protected activity
at the time the employer decided not to offer West a future
contract. The law does not require that an employee be engaged in
protected activity at the time of the employer's decision to take
the contested action. To establish protected union activity, a
party may even rely on events predating the six-month statute of
limitations period. Port of Tacoma, Decision 4626-A.
Even if the law was as stated by the employer, the record
demonstrates that West continued to be engaged in union activities
at the time the employer made the decision to take the contested
action. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that Penney was aware
of many of West's protected union activities at the time she made
her decision. Penney was aware of West's service on the union's
bargaining team and CAC, she knew West was running for union
president and, as discussed in greater detail below, she had
observed West's advocacy of union issues at department meetings.
West's union activities satisfy the first element of the union's
prima facie case.
Deprivation of Right, Benefit, or Status
The employer argues that because West had no continuing contract
rights, the union failed to establish this element. Although I
agree that West had no continuing contract rights, I find that the
employer's decision to not offer West a contract beyond summer
quarter of 2008 deprived her of a benefit or status. In City of
Brier, Decision 10013-A (PECB, 2009), the Commission determined that
an employee's termination met this element of his prima facie case
even though he was a probationary employee who could be terminated
"at will" and without cause. Similarly here, the union meets this
element of its prima facie case.
Causal Connection
At hearing, Cavalluzzi and Penney testified that the employer
decided not to offer West a part-time teaching contract beyond
summer quarter of 2008 because West was divisive and disruptive in
the English department. When counsel for the union asked Penney for
examples of when West was disrespectful, not collegial, or otherwise
interfered with the functions of the department, Penney talked about
having observed West on several occasions during English department
meetings. She identified a specific example of what she described
as West's "over scrutiny" of the department co-chair on a scheduling
issue. The following is the exchange between counsel for the union
and Penney on this subject:
Q. [By Rosen] What do you mean by over scrutiny?
A. [By Penney] The lines were blurred in some of the
English
department meetings, in my observations, that she
[West] was not always there attending as an
individual faculty member. But she was bringing the
union voice in. . . .
Q. . . . when you said she was bringing the union voice
in, what you're saying is that she was speaking in
her role as a union representative rather than as an
individual?
A. It appeared that way on some occasions, yes.
Q. And you found that offensive?
A. I found that it blurred the lines of what the focus
of the English department meetings were supposed [to]
be about. And that -- I'll stop there.
The union established a causal connection between West's union
activity and the adverse employment action.
Employer's Non-Discriminatory Reason for Action
To rebut the union's prima facie case, the employer need only
produce legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its action.
Neither state law nor the parties' collective bargaining agreement
gives part-time academic employees continuing contract rights. The
parties' collective bargaining agreement does not require the
employer to provide a part-time employee with notice of why the
employer elects not to offer the employee future contracts.
Furthermore, as discussed above, no past practice exists requiring
the employer to provide part-time academic employees with notice of
concerns and an opportunity to remediate the concerns prior to
deciding not to offer the employee a future contract.
When Penney told West of her decision, she elected, consistent with
the employer's rights, to tell West only that she was changing the
direction of the English department. Cavalluzzi and Penney decided
not to give West a reason for the decision because they felt it
would open "a big can of worms."
The testimony and exhibits at hearing demonstrated significant
conflict among faculty in the English department. When Penney
assumed her position with the employer in July 2007, she met with 50
to 60 staff members, faculty, and administrators in the English
department and other departments. During those meetings she learned
about the conflicts in the English department and, during the course
of the academic year, she observed divisiveness and a lack of
collegiality in the department. She had many conversations with
Cavalluzzi about her concerns with the department and ways to
address the concerns.
Penney decided not to offer West a contract beyond summer quarter of
2008 because she found West contributed to the divisiveness and
disruption in the English department.(fn:4) Penney felt that West
undermined and disrespected Penney's authority, interfered with the
functions of the English department co-chairs, and did not help to
create a collegial atmosphere within the English department.
____________________
fn:4 Penney gave notice to a total of seven employees that they
would not be offered future contracts, including another part-time
faculty member in the English department. The record contains no
details on these other actions.
During her testimony, Penney provided several examples in addition
to the "over scrutiny" example included in the causal connection
section above. One example occurred in March 2008 when West had
learned that Penney set aside part-time faculty professional
development funds. Penney heard West in the hallway outside of
Penney's office speaking loudly to a support staff member saying it
was not right and words to the effect of "Here we go again I have
to train another administrator."
Penney also described how she believed West did not accurately
represent some issues. For example, after Penney met with West in
August 2007 and Penney committed to bring the employer's president
and Cavalluzzi to a department meeting to discuss the issue of
seniority in scheduling, Penney heard that West considered the
meeting a waste of time and felt that things probably would not
change. Penney also testified that one of the English department
co-chairs showed Penney an e-mail that West had sent to him that
admonished Penney for breaking the confidentiality of negotiations.
Both Penney and Cavalluzzi testified that the co-chairs of the
English department complained that they felt West undermined them
and attacked them. Neither co-chair testified.(fn:5) Other staff
members also complained to Penney and Cavalluzzi about West,
although none testified and the record contains very limited
information about the concerns.
____________________
fn:5 Two previous English department chairs testified, one from the
2002-04 academic years and one from the 2004-06 academic years.
Neither expressed concerns about working with West.
The employer has a legitimate interest in advocating civil discourse
among employees and promoting collegiality, collaboration, and
mutual respect. When an employer believes that an employee
undermines such efforts, the employer has a legitimate interest in
addressing the issue with the employee.
I find that the employer produced a legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for its action.
Union's Ultimate Burden of Proof
The union bears the ultimate burden of establishing that the
employer's reasons were pretextual or that the employer's actions
were substantially motivated by the employee's protected activity.
In this case, the union met its burden and established that West's
protected activities were a substantial motivating factor in the
employer's decision to not offer West a part-time teaching contract
beyond summer quarter of 2008.
The employer decided not to offer West future contracts because her
supervisor found West to be divisive, disruptive and lacking in
collegiality. In explaining the behavior leading to this
determination, Penney focused on West's protected union activities.
In addition to Penney's concern about West "bringing the union
voice" into department meetings, Penney also testified as follows:
It was clear to me in my job description that it was not the
role of the English department, nor my role, to take on
issues outside the negotiated agreement. These were brought
up, sometimes misrepresented by Margaret [West], and I felt
that it was an interference with the management of the
department. And of course, my role as dean.
Employees who engage in protected union activities are not immune
from work rules, expectations, or performance standards. Chapter
28B.52 RCW does not shield employees from the consequences of their
performance deficiencies or inappropriate behavior. In this case,
although the employer had a legitimate interest in improving the
functioning of the English department, it did not have the right to
take an adverse employment action against an employee because of her
union activities.
Conclusion
The employer discriminated against West in reprisal for exercising
rights protected by Chapter 28B.52 RCW.
REMEDY
The union seeks the customary remedies in discrimination cases in
addition to the extraordinary remedy of costs and attorney fees.
The union also requests that the 60-day posting of notice include
only the regular academic year and exclude summer quarter.
The Commission sparingly grants extraordinary remedies. The
Commission and its examiners generally only award attorney fees as a
punitive remedy in response to a party's egregious conduct, where a
party has engaged in a pattern of conduct showing patent disregard
of the law, or where a party has advanced frivolous defenses.
Western Washington University, Decision 9309-A (PSRA, 2008); Skagit
County, Decision 8746-A (PECB, 2006).
In this case, I order the customary remedies of reinstatement, back
pay, and posting and reading of the notice. The 60-day posting
requirement includes summer quarter. The employer operates and
holds classes during summer quarter and the union identified no
basis to exclude those days.
I am not awarding costs and attorney fees because this employer has
not engaged in a pattern of conduct showing disregard of the law or
egregious conduct as defined by our case precedent. The union
argues that because an examiner concluded the employer refused to
bargain and interfered with employee rights in Community College
District 23 (Edmonds), Decision 10020 (CCOL, 2008), attorney fees
and costs are warranted. Because I conclude that the employer did
not commit a refusal to bargain violation, this does not represent a
repeat violation. My search of other cases before the Commission
revealed no cases concluding that this employer has committed a
discrimination violation. Furthermore, although the employer
presented unpersuasive defenses to the discrimination complaint, I
do not find them frivolous.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Edmonds Community College is a public employer within the
meaning of Chapter 28B.52 RCW.
2. American Federation of Teachers, Local 4254 is an exclusive
bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW
28B.52.020(7), and represents a bargaining unit of academic
employees of Edmonds Community College.
3. Margaret West worked for the employer as a part-time academic
employee in the English department for over 20 years.
4. Joan Penney started as the dean of the employer's humanities
and social sciences division in July 2007. In that role, she
supervises the English department.
5. On May 2, 2008, Penney notified West that she would not be
offered a part-time teaching contract beyond summer quarter
of 2008.
6. Penney did not provide West with notice of concerns and the
opportunity to correct the concerns prior to notifying her
that she would not be offered a future teaching contract.
7. The employer does not maintain a consistent practice of
providing part-time faculty members who have worked for the
employer for more than a few quarters with notice of concerns
and the opportunity to correct the concerns prior to deciding
not to offer them future teaching contracts.
8. West has been actively involved in the union since 1997,
serving in leadership roles for the local and state union.
West participated on union bargaining teams that negotiated
four full collective bargaining agreements and two sets of
bargaining re-openers with the employer. During the 2007-08
academic year, West participated in negotiations between the
union and the employer and served as one of the three union
representatives on the contract administration committee
(CAC). In early March 2008, West announced she was running
for president of the union.
9. West also served as a vocal advocate for union issues. On an
ongoing basis West raised concerns when she perceived that
bargaining agreement provisions or practices were not being
implemented appropriately.
10. Penney was aware of many of West's protected union activities
at the time she made her decision, including West's service
on the union's bargaining team and CAC, her advocacy of union
issues at department meetings, and her running for union
president.
11. A causal connection exists between West's protected union
activities described in Findings of Fact 8 and 9, and the
employer's decision described in Finding of Fact 5.
12. The employer's stated reason for not offering West future
contracts beyond summer of 2008 was that West contributed to
the divisiveness and disruption in the English department,
undermined and disrespected Penney's authority, interfered
with the functions of the English department co-chairs, and
did not help to create a collegial atmosphere within the
English department.
13. West's protected union activities were a substantial
motivating factor for the employer's decision to not offer
West a contract beyond summer quarter of 2008.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction
in this matter under Chapter 28B.52 RCW and Chapter 391-45
WAC.
2. Because the employer's action described in Finding of Fact 6
did not constitute a change from an established past
practice, the employer did not refuse to bargain or violate
RCW 28B.52.073(1)(e).
3. By deciding not to offer Margaret West a part-time teaching
contract after summer quarter of 2008 in reprisal for union
activities protected by Chapter 28B.52 RCW, as described in
Findings of Fact 5 and 8 through 13, Edmonds Community
College discriminated against West in violation of RCW
28B.52.073(1)(c) and (a).
ORDER
EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE, its officers and agents, shall
immediately take the following actions to remedy its unfair labor
practices:
1. CEASE AND DESIST from:
a. Discriminating against Margaret West in reprisal for
her participation in protected union activities;
b. Interfering with Margaret West's employee rights
under Chapter 28B.52 RCW;
c. In any other manner interfering with, restraining or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their
collective bargaining rights under the laws of the
state of Washington.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to effectuate the
purposes and policies of Chapter 28B.52 RCW:
a. Offer Margaret West immediate and full reinstatement
to the former position she held or a substantially
equivalent position, make her whole by payment of
back pay and benefits in the amounts she would have
earned or received from the date of the unlawful
action to the effective date of the unconditional
offer of reinstatement made pursuant to this order,
and restore any lost seniority. Back pay shall be
computed in conformity with WAC 391-45-410.
b. Post copies of the notice provided by the Compliance
Officer of the Public Employment Relations Commission
in conspicuous places on the employer's premises
where notices to all bargaining unit members are
usually posted. These notices shall be duly signed
by an authorized representative of the respondent,
and shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days from
the date of initial posting. The respondent shall
take reasonable steps to ensure that such notices are
not removed, altered, defaced, or covered by other
material.
c. Read the notice provided by the Compliance Officer
into the record at a regular public meeting of the
Board of Trustees of the EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
and permanently append a copy of the notice to the
official minutes of the meeting where the notice is
read as required by this paragraph.
d. Notify the complainant, in writing, within 20 days
following the date of this order, as to what steps
have been taken to comply with this order, and at the
same time provide the complainant with a signed copy
of the notice provided by the Compliance Officer.
e. Notify the Compliance Officer of the Public
Employment Relations Commission, in writing, within
20 days following the date of this order, as to what
steps have been taken to comply with this order, and
at the same time provide the Compliance Officer with
a signed copy of the notice.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 1st day of July, 2009.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
JAMIE L. SIEGEL, Examiner
This order will be the final order of the
agency unless a notice of appeal is filed
with the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.
CASE 22084-U-08-5624
DECISION 10250-A - CCOL
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
NOTICE
TO EMPLOYEES
THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION CONDUCTED
A LEGAL PROCEEDING IN WHICH ALL PARTIES HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT. THE COMMISSION RULED THAT
EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMMITTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN
VIOLATION OF STATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS:
WE UNLAWFULLY discriminated against Margaret West and interfered
with employee rights when we decided not to offer her a
part-time teaching contract after the summer quarter of 2008 in
reprisal for her engaging in protected union activities.
TO REMEDY OUR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES:
WE WILL offer a part-time contract to Margaret West to teach in
her former position or a substantially equivalent position.
WE WILL pay Margaret West the wages and benefits she lost as the
result of the decision to not offer her a contract after summer
quarter of 2008.
WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their collective
bargaining rights under the laws of the state of Washington.
DO NOT POST OR PUBLICLY READ THIS NOTICE.
AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR POSTING AND READING
WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE COMPLIANCE OFFICER.
The full decision is published on PERC's website, www.perc.wa.gov.