State - Washington State Patrol, Decision 10314 (PECB, 2009)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL TROOPERS )
ASSOCIATION, )
) CASE 21538-U-08-05487
Complainant, )
) DECISION 10314 - PECB
vs. )
)
STATE - WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Respondent. ) AND ORDER
___________________________________)
Aitchison & Vick, by Hillary McClure, Attorney at Law, for the
union.
Attorney General Rob McKenna, by Morgan Damerow, Assistant
Attorney General, for the employer.
On February 20, 2008, the Washington State Patrol Troopers
Association (union) filed a complaint charging an unfair labor
practice against the Washington State Patrol (employer).
On February 29, 2008, an amended preliminary ruling(fn:1) issued,
finding a cause of action for employer interference in violation of
RCW 41.56.140(1) and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW
41.56.140(4) for (1) failing or refusing to meet and negotiate with
the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, and (2) by
refusing to provide relevant information requested by the union
concerning preparations for collective bargaining negotiations. The
employer filed an answer on March 21, 2008.
____________________
fn:1 A preliminary ruling was issued on February 25, 2008. The
February 29, 2009 preliminary ruling corrected an erroneous
statutory reference.
A hearing was scheduled for August 27, 2008. Pursuant to the
parties' request, the hearing was postponed. On October 29, 2008,
the union withdrew the portion of its complaint pertaining to the
refusal to provide requested information. Examiner Charity Atchison
conducted the hearing on October 30, 2008.
ISSUE
Whether the employer refused to bargain and interfered with employee
rights when the union demanded to bargain and the employer (1) did
not respond for over a month; (2) did not propose dates for
approximately six weeks; and (3) would not commence bargaining until
over four months after the union made its demand to bargain?
The Examiner finds that the employer refused to bargain by failing
to respond to the union's January 1, 2008 demand to bargain until
February 7, 2008. The employer refused to bargain by failing to
work with the union to find dates agreeable to both parties and by
insisting that bargaining not commence until over four months after
the union made its demand to bargain when the employer knew the
union desired to commence bargaining sooner.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
An employer commits an unfair labor practice when it refuses to
engage in collective bargaining. RCW 41.56.140(4). As part of the
duty to engage in collective bargaining, the employer and the union
are obligated to meet at reasonable times. RCW 41.56.030(4). When
an employer commits a refusal to bargain unfair labor practice, a
derivative interference violation will automatically be found.
An employer has a positive legal duty to commence bargaining in an
expeditious and prompt manner when a union requests a meeting.
Exchange Parts Company, 139 NLRB 710 (1962); Burgie Vinegar Company,
71 NLRB 829 (1946). An employer commits an unfair labor practice by
refusing to meet with the exclusive bargaining representative. City
of Mercer Island, Decision 1457 (PECB, 1982).
The duty 'to bargain collectively'...is defined...as the duty
to 'meet * * * and confer in good faith with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.' Clearly,
the duty thus defined may be violated without a general failure
of subjective good faith; for there is no occasion to consider
the issue of good faith if a party has refused even to
negotiate in fact- 'to meet * * * and confer'-about any of the
mandatory subjects.
NLRB v. Benne Katz, etc, d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369
U.S. 763 (1962)(editing in original).
In order to resolve their contractual differences through
negotiations, parties to the collective bargaining agreement must
meet in a timely fashion. Morton General Hospital, Decision 2217
(PECB, 1985). The actual course of the negotiations determines
whether negotiations are timely. See City of Mercer Island,
Decision 1457 (PECB, 1982). The charging party has the burden of
proving that the schedule of negotiations relates to the failure of
the other side to bargain in good faith. Mansfield School District,
Decision 4552-A (PECB, 1994).
Negotiations involving uniformed personnel "shall be commenced at
least five months prior to the submission of the budget to the
legislative body of the public employer. . . . " RCW 41.56.440
(emphasis added). If, after sixty days, the employer and union
representing uniformed officers have not reached an agreement,
"then, at any time thereafter, either party may declare that an
impasse exists and may submit the dispute to the commission for
mediation, with or without the concurrence of the other party. . . .
" RCW 41.56.440 (emphasis added). Additionally, if an employer and
union representing uniformed personnel are unable to reach an
agreement through mediation, the Executive Director of the
Commission, upon a finding that impasse exists, can certify the
parties to interest arbitration. RCW 41.56.450. In order for the
governor to request a wage increase, the request for funds must be
submitted to the director of financial management by October 1 in
the year preceding the legislative session during which the request
will be considered. RCW 41.56.473(5)(a).
In this state, public policy favors avoiding strikes by uniformed
personnel. RCW 41.56.430. In the event the parties are unable to
reach a negotiated or mediated agreement, the legislature provided
statutory interest arbitration in lieu of strikes.
[T]he legislature did not intend statutory interest arbitration
to displace the negotiating process; it intended it to be used
to promote uninterrupted and dedicated service by uniformed
personnel to avoid strikes. RCW 41.56.430. Thus, it is more
appropriate to view interest arbitration not as a substitute
for collective bargaining, but as an instrument of the
collective bargaining process that displaces certain economic
tactics.
City of Bellevue v. International Association of Firefighters Local
1064, 119 Wn.2d 373 (1992).
BACKGROUND
Prior to the 2005 amendments to Chapter 41.56 RCW, the union
bargained with the State Patrol. The union and the State Patrol
were prohibited from negotiating wages, pensions, and insurance
benefits. Despite the inability to bargain economic matters,
negotiations for the 2002-2004 and 2004-2007 collective bargaining
agreements lasted longer than ten months. Jeffery Julius, attorney
and negotiator for the union in the 2002-2004, 2004-2007, 2007-2009,
and 2009-2011 collective bargaining agreements, thought the
negotiations for the 2004-2007 collective bargaining agreement may
have extended into 2006.
The governor or the governor's designee became the employer
representative for collective bargaining purposes as a result of the
2005 amendments. RCW 41.56.473(2). The union is still precluded
from negotiating retirement benefits, health care benefits, or other
employee insurance benefits. RCW 41.56.473(1). In 2006, the union
bargained with the governor's designee, the Labor Relations Office
(LRO), for wages. All subsequent negotiations have been for
complete collective bargaining agreements with the LRO as the
employer representative, with Diane Lutz as the employer's lead
negotiator. During negotiations for the 2007-2009 collective
bargaining agreement, the parties were certified for interest
arbitration in September, while subject to the October 1 deadline.
In the 2007-2009 collective bargaining agreement, the parties agreed
to a procedure for requesting successor negotiations. Pursuant to
Article 29.4, either party could request negotiations by notifying
the other party in writing no sooner than January 1, 2008, and no
later than January 31, 2008. Pursuant to RCW 41.56.473(5) any
request for funds necessary to implement wage or wage-related
provisions of a collective bargaining agreement must have been
submitted by October 1, 2008, and must either have been certified as
financially feasible by the director of the Office of Financial
Management or reflect the decision of an interest arbitration
panel.(fn:2)
____________________
fn:2 The union believed that a collective bargaining agreement
reached through negotiations was required to be ratified by its
membership by October 1, 2008, or the interest arbitration decision
must have been completed by October 1, 2008.
On October 31, 2007, Julius sent an e-mail to Lutz. While admitting
it was too early for the union to formally request negotiations,
Julius requested the parties set up dates for bargaining before
calendars began to fill up and requested a time he and Lutz could
discuss scheduling. There is no evidence the employer responded to
this e-mail.
In November 2007, Julius telephoned Lutz to request dates for
negotiations. Julius requested those dates begin in early January.
Julius recalled Lutz informed him she'd have to check with her
principals and get back to him. Lutz recalled that she was clear
with Julius from the beginning that the employer would not be able
to begin bargaining before spring because of the legislative
session, as the LRO was busy and there might be changes to the law
that affected bargaining. In addition, the employer would be unable
to have an economic proposal before spring. Julius did not recall
Lutz ever mentioning the legislature being in session during their
discussions in the fall of 2007.
On November 26, 2007, Julius again e-mailed Lutz. In his e-mail,
Julius informed Lutz that the union looked forward to hearing from
her about dates for negotiations after Lutz discussed negotiations
with her principals.
Between November 26, 2007, and December 28, 2007, Julius telephoned
Lutz again. Julius again requested the parties establish dates for
negotiations and informed Lutz the union wished to begin
negotiations as early as the parties could. Julius recalled Lutz
informed him that the employer had concluded it would be unable to
develop an economic offer until May, and the employer did not want
to begin negotiations until it had an economic offer to make. The
employer was leery of beginning negotiations early because it was
concerned the union would declare impasse before the economic issues
were even discussed. During negotiations for the 2007-2009
collective bargaining agreement, the union declared impasse the day
the employer presented its economic proposal. According to Lutz,
the employer did not feel it would be appropriate to declare impasse
before all the issues were on the table.
On December 28, 2007, the union and the employer met regarding a
separate matter. At the close of the meeting Julius and Lutz had
another conversation about scheduling negotiations. The dialogue
was similar to the other discussions: the union wanted to begin
negotiations as soon as possible and wanted to establish dates for
negotiations; the employer would not have an economic offer until
May and did not want to begin bargaining before it could make an
economic offer. Julius suggested the parties negotiate the
non-economic issues first and save economics for later. This was
unacceptable to the employer, which remained concerned that impasse
might be declared before all of the issues had been discussed. To
allay the employer's concerns about the union potentially declaring
impasse prior to the employer making its economic offer, Julius
suggested the parties could ask a mediator to mediate the
non-economic issues and not to mediate the economic issues while the
parties negotiated the economic issues on their own. At some point
in these discussions, Lutz offered to secure an interest arbitrator
even before the parties knew whether they would need one; she made
the offer to address what she perceived as the union's concern about
having enough time to complete the entire negotiations process.
On January 1, 2008, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement,
union president Tommie Pillow submitted the union's demand for
successor negotiations. Having no response from the employer,
Julius e-mailed Lutz on January 10, 2008, requesting the parties set
up dates in "the very near future" to begin negotiations. The first
response from the employer came on January 16, 2008, when Diane
Leigh, then acting director of LRO, sent Pillow a letter informing
him that Lutz would be the lead negotiator and that Lutz would
contact the union to set up dates for negotiations. Leigh's letter
did not indicate how long it would be before Lutz contacted the
union to set up dates. At the hearing, Lutz stated that after the
union demanded to bargain on January 1, 2008, in order to schedule,
she had to figure out who would be on the employer's bargaining
team, had to have conversations with her principals, and had to
discuss dates. Lutz did not communicate to the union that this
course of events would delay her ability to respond to the union.
In February, over five weeks after the union demanded to bargain,
four weeks after Julius e-mailed Lutz, over three months after
Julius first informed Lutz the union wanted to set up early dates as
soon as possible, and having heard no response from Lutz, Julius
called Lutz and left a message. On February 7, 2008, Lutz sent
Julius an e-mail offering dates the employer's team was available to
meet. The first date the employer offered was April 21, 2008. On
February 16, 2008, Julius responded to Lutz's e-mail. In this
e-mail, Julius pointed out that, in light of the statutory time
constraints, the union had, on numerous occasions, requested
negotiations commence earlier. Julius informed Lutz that the union
believed the employer committed an unfair labor practice violation
by refusing to meet. Additionally, without waiving the union's
right to seek relief for what it viewed as an unfair labor practice,
the union accepted April 21, 2008, as the first date for
negotiations, while pointing out that the employer had offered the
union dates on which the employer and the union already had another
matter scheduled. Julius also accepted the employer's offer to
secure an interest arbitrator. On February 20, 2008, Lutz responded
to Julius by e-mail, confirming the April and May dates.
ANALYSIS
The duty to bargain arises under Chapter 41.56 RCW. Collective
bargaining includes the obligation to meet at reasonable times and
places. A positive legal duty exists to make expeditious and prompt
arrangements to bargain. Exchange Parts Company, 139 NLRB 710, 713
(1962). Delay in discussing collective bargaining matters stifles
agreements. Exchange Parts Company, 139 NLRB 710, 714 (1962).
Parties "must exercise a reasonable degree of diligence and
promptitude in arranging meetings for the purpose of eliminating
obstacles to agreement." Exchange Parts Company. The scheduling
process is key to determining when the parties will meet. It is
unreasonable to delay scheduling and be inflexible about when
bargaining will commence.
Employer's Failure to Respond
On January 1, 2008, the union demanded to bargain. After more than
two weeks, on January 16, 2008, the employer informed the union that
Lutz would be the employer's lead negotiator. The employer took
more than two weeks to respond at all. The employer did not offer
dates to begin bargaining. Identifying who the lead negotiator
would be does not move the parties toward establishing a date for
bargaining. Although Leigh's letter informed the union that Lutz
would contact them with dates for negotiations, the employer gave no
timeline in which the union could expect that contact. Further,
there is no evidence that the employer, through Lutz, responded to
Julius's January 10, 2008 e-mail. Even if the union may have
complicated matters by initiating correspondence from two sources,
the employer knew both Pillow and Julius were involved in
bargaining. The employer continued its pattern of not responding to
any representative of the union. Leigh's letter and Lutz's lack of
response did not satisfy the employer's duty to respond to the
union's demand to bargain and engage in collective bargaining at
reasonable times and places.
The employer was not unaware that the union would make a prompt
demand to bargain a successor contract. Julius's attempts in
October, November, and December 2007, to set up dates for bargaining
provided the employer advance notice that the union would be
requesting to bargain and desired to begin the negotiations as soon
as possible. Despite advance notice, the employer did not respond
until February 7, 2008, to offer the union dates for negotiations.
While it is reasonable for an employer to consult with its team to
determine when the team is available for negotiations, it is
unreasonable to take over a month to respond to the union with dates
that the employer knows will be unacceptable to the union. If the
employer needed more time to establish dates it was available to
meet, the employer should have communicated that to the union.
Refusal to Begin Bargaining until a Fixed Date
In order for collective bargaining to take place, the parties must
at least be receptive to considering the proposals made by the
opposing side. Walla Walla County, Decision 2932 (PECB, 1988),
aff'd Decision 2932-A (PECB, 1988). If one of the parties states
its unequivocal opposition to a bargaining topic before meaningful
discussions can take place, the bargaining process will undoubtedly
fail. Walla Walla County, Decision 2932, aff'd Decision 2932-A.
"No" can be a legitimate response to a proposal, if the response is
made in good faith. In Walla Walla County, from the outset, the
employer made statements that reflected its unwillingness to
compromise on a certain issue. The examiner found the employer
refused to bargain by its actions.
While this case deals with the effort to commence bargaining rather
than the substance of proposals in bargaining, the behaviors are
comparable. In this case, the employer was unequivocal in its
desire not to begin bargaining prior to the spring of 2008. The
union persistently sought dates earlier than spring 2008. In their
discussions, and in Lutz's testimony, the employer provided the
union with reasons why the employer would not begin bargaining: (1)
the employer would be unable to present its economic proposal until
the spring; (2) the employer feared the union would declare impasse
and request mediation prior to the employer making its economic
proposal; and (3) the legislature was in session.(3) In its brief,
the employer asserted it could not begin bargaining until April 21,
2008, because: (1) the legislature was in session; (2) the employer
would be unable to present an economic proposal until after the June
economic forecast; and (3) the union made a large information
request.(4) When the employer offered dates, its first available
date, April 21, 2008, was consistent with what it had repeatedly
said to the union: the employer won't negotiate sooner than spring
2008. The employer kept insisting on these timetables and dates
even when the union provided assurances and alternatives to try to
allay the employer's concerns. The employer's action of offering
April 21 as its first available date is consistent with the
employer's insistence that bargaining happen on the employer's time
schedule and not happen according to a schedule mutually discussed
and decided on by the employer and the union. These actions reflect
an approach inconsistent with the requirements of good faith. The
employer refused to meet by delaying its response and offering an
initial bargaining date of April 21, 2008.
____________________
fn:3 The union asserts the October 30, 2008 hearing was the first
time the employer informed the union that the employer could not
begin bargaining because the legislature was in session.
fn:4 There is no evidence the employer communicated to the union
that the information request would prevent the employer from
beginning bargaining.
Balance of Power
The employer contends that finding it committed an unfair labor
practice would give the union the upper hand and enable the union to
compel the employer to negotiate whenever the union wishes. The
employer would have the Examiner prevent the union from requesting
to bargain earlier, but not prevent the employer from delaying
collective bargaining. Collective bargaining, by its nature, is
meant to level the playing field. In theory, a union and an
employer have equal power in collective bargaining. The employer is
asking the Examiner to eliminate a union's ability to demand
bargaining at reasonable times and places and to allow the employer
to dictate when bargaining will begin. The Examiner refuses to do
so. Either party has the right to demand bargaining for a
collective bargaining agreement. Both parties have obligations to
bargain at reasonable times and places. To find as the employer
wishes will not give the union the ultimate power to "drag" the
employer to the table whenever the union wants. Rather, it will
maintain the purpose and function of keeping the parties on a level
playing field by preventing the employer from dragging its feet and
preventing the beginning of collective bargaining in a timely
fashion.
Course of Negotiations
It is up to the parties to determine how they will proceed with
negotiations. In City of Clarkston, Decision 3246 (PECB, 1989), the
parties, both unable to present their economic proposals, decided to
commence bargaining on non-economic issues, and bargain economics
once both sides were prepared to do so. In this case, the employer
did not want to begin negotiations prior to developing an economic
proposal because it feared the union would declare impasse and seek
mediation prior to the employer delivering its economic proposal.
The union, recognizing the employer's concern, offered, if mediation
had begun, to ask the mediator not to mediate while the union and
employer negotiated economics. The employer refused this offer by
imposing its will on the union and offering dates when the employer
desired to commence bargaining, rather than attempting to find a
middle ground with the union. Fear is not an excuse for failing to
meet.
In Mansfield School District, Decision 4552-A, bargaining sessions
were held approximately once per month, and future bargaining dates
could only be established after the superintendent checked his
schedule with his secretary the day following a bargaining session.
In that case, the union did not argue that it lacked sufficient time
to present arguments or that the time schedule had any substantive
impact on any of the issues the parties were bargaining. Further,
the evidence did not sustain a conclusion that the employer was
using the scheduling process to avoid negotiations. Thus, the
Commission did not find the employer committed an unfair labor
practice.
This case is distinguishable from Mansfield School District. First,
the preliminary ruling in this case finds a cause of action for
"failing or refusing to meet and negotiate with the exclusive
bargaining representative." In Mansfield School District, a cause
of action was found to exist for refusal "to schedule bargaining
sessions except at intervals of several weeks." This case is
limited to the employer's action, or inaction, in responding to the
union's demand to bargain and schedule meetings. Here, the union
alleged it requested to bargain and the employer did not respond in
a timely fashion. In Mansfield School District, the union alleged
the meetings were held approximately once per month, and future
meetings could not be scheduled at the close of a bargaining
session. This case hinges on the employer's complete failure to
meet and schedule meetings.
Second, it is unnecessary in this case to determine whether the
delay in scheduling had an impact on the issues the parties
bargained. In Mansfield School District, the examiner had detailed
information about what occurred during bargaining because numerous
causes of action existed relating to the actual course of
negotiations. In this case, limited evidence was introduced as to
what occurred in bargaining. The preliminary ruling in this case
did not incorporate the conduct that occurred during negotiations,
and the complaint was filed prior to the commencement of bargaining.
Thus, this case does not deal with the entire course of
negotiations. This case deals with the union's demand to bargain,
the failure of the employer to timely respond, and the insistence by
the employer as to when bargaining would commence. In this case,
the facts surrounding the demand to bargain are sufficient to find
that the employer committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to
bargain.
The evidence indicates that the employer was using the scheduling
process to delay commencement of negotiations. By not responding to
the union's request for a meeting, the employer was able to push
back when bargaining could commence. By offering April 21, 2008, as
its first available date, the employer reaffirmed its message to the
union that bargaining was to begin only on the employer's terms.
RCW 41.56.440
The employer contends that because the parties were able to begin
bargaining by April 21, 2008, the parties were ahead of the
statutorily prescribed five month deadline to begin bargaining.
The employer relies on City of Seattle, Decision 4844-4845 (PECB,
1994) to support its position. The City of Seattle decision is a
preliminary ruling based on allegations, not a result of an
evidentiary hearing. The Executive Director outlined an estimated
time line in which he thought the collective bargaining process
could be completed. The City of Seattle decision is not prescribing
a mandatory number of days in which the process must minimally be
completed. Negotiations, and mediation if needed, may take more
time than the Executive Director estimated. That case was not a
case about the refusal to meet at reasonable times and places;
rather, it stemmed from conduct of the parties regarding information
they were or were not disclosing and the role of interest
arbitration in the bargaining process.
RCW 41.56.440 sets out a statutory minimum process for the
commencement of bargaining, the earliest the parties can request
mediation, and the process of certification to interest arbitration.
Parties are expected to exercise their discretion and begin
bargaining in enough time to complete negotiations. Compliance with
the five month statutory minimum for beginning bargaining does not
absolve an employer from refusing to bargain when a union demands to
bargain.
Employer's Contentions
The employer accuses the union of being "inconsistent and
hypocritical" for filing this unfair labor practice complaint when
Julius was unavailable to bargain for part of May and June due to a
vacation. The Examiner can only decide matters before her. If the
employer believed an unfair labor practice had been committed by the
union's unavailability, it should have filed an unfair labor
practice complaint rather than raise the matter in its brief.
CONCLUSION
The employer refused to bargain by failing to meet at reasonable
times when the employer did not promptly respond to the union's
January 1, 2008 demand to bargain. The employer's January 16, 2008
letter informing the union who the employer's lead negotiator would
be did not satisfy the employer's duty to promptly respond to a
demand to bargain. The employer refused to bargain by not
responding to the union's demand to bargain with dates for
negotiations until February 7, 2008. The employer refused to
bargain by insisting that bargaining not commence until late spring
2008 and offering the earliest date to be April 21, 2008, when the
employer knew the union desired to commence bargaining sooner than
spring 2008.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Washington State Patrol is a public employer within the
meaning of RCW 41.56.030(1).
2. The Washington State Patrol Troopers Association is a
bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3).
3. The Office of Financial Management Labor Relations Office (LRO)
represents the governor in collective bargaining pursuant to
RCW 41.56.473(2).
4. LRO negotiated with the union for wages in 2006. The union,
with Jeffrey Julius as the lead negotiator, and the LRO, with
Diane Lutz as lead negotiator, negotiated the 2007-2009
collective bargaining agreement.
5. The union, through its lead negotiator Julius, made the
employer aware by e-mail on October 31, 2007, by telephone
between October 31, 2007, and November 26, 2007, by e-mail on
November 26, 2007, by telephone between November 26, 2007, and
December 28, 2007, and in person on December 28, 2007, that the
union wanted to begin bargaining as early as possible and
requested the parties establish dates for bargaining.
6. The employer did not respond to the union's October 31, 2007
request to establish early dates for negotiation.
Subsequently, each time the union requested dates for
negotiation, the employer, through Lutz, refused to set up
dates for negotiations. The employer asserted it was
unavailable for bargaining prior to spring 2008 because: (1)
the legislature was in session; (2) the employer would not have
its economic proposal ready until the spring; and (3) the
employer feared the union would declare impasse before the
employer provided its economic proposal.
7. By a January 1, 2008 letter, union president Tommie Pillow made
a formal demand to bargain with the employer.
8. Having no response to the January 1, 2008 demand to bargain, on
January 10, 2008, Julius e-mailed Lutz to attempt to establish
dates for negotiations. Lutz did not respond to Julius's e-mail.
9. On January 16, 2008, Diane Leigh, acting director of the LRO,
sent union president Tommie Pillow a letter informing the union
that Diane Lutz would be the employer's lead negotiator and
that Lutz would contact the union to establish dates for
bargaining. Leigh's January 16, 2008 letter was the first
response the employer made to the union's January 1, 2008
request to bargain and to Julius's January 10, 2008 e-mail.
10. In February 2008, over a month after the union demanded to
bargain, and having no response about dates for negotiations
from the employer, Julius telephoned Lutz and left a voice-mail
seeking to establish dates for bargaining.
11. On February 7, 2008, Lutz e-mailed Julius and, consistent with
the employer's position that it would not begin bargaining
before spring 2008, offered April 21, 2008 as the first date
the employer was available for negotiations.
12. On February 20, 2008, Julius e-mailed Lutz to confirm April 21,
2008, as the first bargaining session. Julius protested the
late date and reserved the right to file an unfair labor practice.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in
this matter under Chapter 41.56 RCW and Chapter 391-45 WAC.
2. By failing or refusing to bargain with the union, as described
in Findings of Fact 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 the employer refused
to meet at reasonable times in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4)
and (1).
ORDER
STATE-WASHINGTON STATE PATROL, its officers and agents, shall
immediately take the following actions to remedy its unfair labor
practices:
1. CEASE AND DESIST from:
a. Failing or refusing to respond to the union's demands to
bargain, failing or refusing to promptly provide dates for
negotiations, failing or refusing to meet at reasonable
times and places when requested to do so by the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees, and insisting
on a fixed date for bargaining to commence when requested
to find a mutually agreeable date.
b. In any other manner interfering with, restraining or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their collective
bargaining rights under by the laws of the state of
Washington.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to effectuate the
purposes and policies of Chapter 41.56 RCW:
a. Upon request, promptly respond to demands to bargain,
promptly schedule negotiation sessions, find dates
mutually agreeable to both parties when scheduling, and
negotiate in good faith with WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, when requested.
b. Post copies of the notice provided by the Compliance
Officer of the Public Employment Relations Commission in
conspicuous places on the Washington State Patrol premises
where notices to all bargaining unit members are usually
posted, and in conspicuous places on the Labor Relations
Office premises where notices to all staff 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. 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
attached to this order.
d. 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
attached to this order.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 26th day of February, 2009.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
CHARITY L ATCHISON, 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 21538-U-08-5487
DECISION 10314 - PECB
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 THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL COMMITTED
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF STATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS:
WE UNLAWFULLY refused to bargain with the Washington State Patrol Troopers
Association when we failed or refused to respond to the union's demands to
bargain, failed or refused to promptly provide dates for negotiations,
failed or refused to meet at reasonable times and places when requested to
do so by the union, and insisted that bargaining would not commence prior to
a fixed time period.
TO REMEDY OUR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES:
WE WILL promptly respond to requests to bargain upon request.
WE WILL promptly schedule negotiation sessions upon request.
WE WILL find dates that are mutually agreeable to both parties when scheduling.
WE WILL NOT insist that bargaining will commence on a fixed time schedule.
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.