State - Office of the Governor, Decision 10313-A (PECB, 2009)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL TROOPERS )
ASSOCIATION, )
)
Complainant, ) CASE 22171-U-09-5654
)
vs. ) DECISION 10313-A - PECB
)
STATE - OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, ) DECISION OF COMMISSION
)
Respondent. )
)
___________________________________)
Aitchison & Vick, by Jeffrey Julius, Attorney at Law, for the
union.
Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, by Morgan Damerow,
Assistant Attorney General, for the employer.
This case comes before the Commission on a timely appeal filed by
the State - Office of the Governor (employer) seeking review and
reversal of the Conclusions of Law and Order issued on summary
judgment by Examiner Jamie L. Siegel.(fn:1) The Washington State
Patrol Troopers Association (union) supports the Examiner's
decision.
____________________
fn:1 State - Office of the Governor, Decision 10313 (PECB, 2009).
Attached as Appendix A.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The only issue before this Commission is whether the Examiner
correctly concluded that RCW 41.56.473 compels the Governor to
submit a request to the Legislature for funds necessary to implement
an interest arbitration award.
DECISION
After careful consideration of the record, the Examiner's decision,
and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the Examiner. The Examiner
has ably described the factual situation, properly interpreted the
pertinent statutory framework as well as the parties' arguments,
and, in the interests of an expedited decision, we adopt the
Examiner's reasoning, findings, conclusions, and order.
Employer's Other Arguments on Appeal
With respect to counsel's other arguments on appeal, those arguments
are not applicable to the factual situation presented. The
argument that the law governing the budgeting process, Chapter 43.88
RCW, grants this employer complete discretion in crafting its
proposed budget is an improper interpretation given the purpose of
permitting employees the right to organize for the purpose of
bargaining collectively with their employer. If Chapter 43.88 RCW
is construed to grant this employer unfettered discretion in
crafting its proposed budget, the Governor would never be compelled
to submit a request for funds necessary to implement any
compensation or fringe benefit provision of a negotiated agreement,
including those found to be financially feasible for the state by
the Director of the Office of Financial Management under RCW
41.56.473(5)(b). This reading of the pertinent statutes effectively
renders useless not only all of RCW 41.56.473 and RCW 41.56.475, but
also other collective bargaining statutes requiring this employer to
collectively bargain with its employees.
The argument that the dramatic change in economic circumstances
allows the employer to withdraw from the interest arbitration award
is also without merit. Had the parties reached a mutually
acceptable agreement, this argument would have merit, and the
precedent announced in State - Office of the Governor, Decision
10353 (PSRA, April 1, 2009), would apply. However, the Examiner's
proper interpretation of RCW 41.56.473(5) demonstrates a legislative
intent to treat any interest arbitration award in a similar manner
to other employees who enjoy interest arbitration rights under
Chapter 41.56 RCW, and that when the outstanding issues are
certified by the Executive Director for arbitration, the parties
have a binding collective bargaining agreement, but are simply
waiting for the interest arbitrator to announce the final terms.
See, e.g., Kitsap County, Decision 4961 (PECB, 1995)(competing labor
organization's change of representation petition dismissed where
incumbent labor organization and employer were already certified for
interest arbitration); see also Washington State Ferries, Decision
763 (MRNE, 1979). The only real difference in the interest
arbitration process for uniformed officers of the Washington State
Patrol is that the interest arbitration award is not binding upon
the Legislature, and if the Legislature fails to appropriate funds
necessary to implement the award, the parties must return to the
bargaining table.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued by Examiner Jamie
L. Siegel in the above-captioned case are AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Commission. The
Order issued by Examiner Jamie L. Siegel in the above-captioned case
is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as the Order of the Commission, except
paragraph 2.c., which is amended to read as follows:
Post copies of the notice provided by the Compliance Officer of
the Public Employment Relations Commission in conspicuous
places on the premises of the Washington State Patrol where
notices to all bargaining unit members located throughout the
state are usually posted. These notices shall be duly signed
by the Director of the Office of Financial Management, 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.
Issued at Olympia, Washington, the 21st day of April, 2009.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
MARILYN GLENN SAYAN, Chairperson
PAMELA G. BRADBURN, Commissioner
THOMAS W. McLANE, Commissioner