City of Mabton, Decision 10323 (PECB, 2009)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 760, )
)
Complainant, ) CASE 21706-U-08-5535
)
vs. ) DECISION 10323 - PECB
)
CITY OF MABTON, ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Respondent. ) AND ORDER
___________________________________)
Reid, Pedersen, McCarthy & Ballew, by David W. Ballew, Attorney
at Law, for the union.
The Wesley Group, by Kevin Wesley, Labor Relations Consultant,
for the employer.
On May 9, 2008, Teamsters Local 760 (union) filed a complaint
charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations
Commission, naming the City of Mabton (employer) as the respondent.
A preliminary ruling was issued finding that the complaint stated
causes of action for employer interference with employee rights and
discrimination, by its layoff of Frank Tijerina in reprisal for
union activities protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW.
A hearing was held on September 24, 2008, before Examiner Paul T.
Schwendiman. The parties filed post-hearing briefs.
ISSUE PRESENTED
Did the employer discriminate against Frank Tijerina in violation of
RCW 41.56.140(1), by laying him off in reprisal for engaging in
protected union activities?
I conclude the employer discriminated against Tijerina in violation
of RCW 41.56.140(1).
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
RCW 41.56.040 provides:
No public employer, or other person, shall directly or
indirectly, interfere with, restrain, coerce, or discriminate
against any public employee or group of public employees in the
free exercise of their right to organize and designate
representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of
collective bargaining, or in the free exercise of any other
right under this chapter.
Enforcement of those statutory rights by remedying employer
interference and discrimination violations is through the unfair
labor practice provisions of RCW 41.56.140(1):
It shall be an unfair labor practice for a public employer:
(1) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce public
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by this
chapter;
A discrimination violation under RCW 41.56.140(1) occurs when an
employer takes action against an employee in reprisal for the
exercise of employee rights protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW. In
Educational Service District 114, Decision 4361-A (PECB, 1994), the
Commission adopted the legal discrimination test established by the
Supreme Court of the State of Washington in Wilmot v. Kaiser
Aluminum, 118 Wn.2d 46 (1991), and Allison v. Seattle Housing
Authority, 118 Wn.2d 79 (1991).
Under the Commission's test, the complainant must establish a prima
facie case of discrimination by proving:
1. An employee exercised a right protected by the collective
bargaining statute, or communicates to the employer an intent
to do so.
2. The employee was deprived of some ascertainable right, status
or benefit.
3. A causal connection exists between the protected union activity
and the action claimed to be discriminatory.
Where a complainant establishes its prima facie case of
discrimination, the employer need only articulate non-discriminatory
reasons for its actions. Educational Service District 114, Decision
4361-A. The employer does not have the burden of proof of the
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Port of Tacoma, Decision
4626-A (PECB, 1995). The burden remains on the complainant to prove
that the disputed action was in retaliation for the employee's
exercise of statutory rights. That may be done by:
1. showing that the reasons given by the employer were
pretextual; or
2. showing that union animus was nevertheless a substantial
motivating factor behind the employer's actions.
Seattle School District, Decision 9628-A (PECB, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Union's Prima Facie Case
I find the union proved all three elements of its prima facie case
of discrimination:
1. Tijerina exercised a right protected by the collective
bargaining statute. The employer admitted in its answer
to the complaint knowing Tijerina served on the union
negotiating committee and as shop steward. The testimony
confirms the admission and proves, as steward, he brought
overtime nonpayment questions to Mayor Velva Herrera.
2. Tijerina was deprived of some ascertainable right, status
or benefit. The employer admits in its answer it
terminated Tijerina's employment by laying him off.
3. A causal connection exists between the protected union
activity and the action claimed to be discriminatory.
To prove causation for Tijerina's termination, the union relies on
testimony of City Councilperson Angel Reyna concerning a
conversation Reyna had with former contract employee Linda Bowen in
late March or early April 2008, as Reyna testified:
[Bowen] had indicated to me that she had met with the Mayor and
talked to the Mayor about firing Frank because he asked a lot
of questions and he should be let go.
However, Mayor Herrera responded to Reyna's testimony, by indicating
she, "Never had a conversation with Linda Bowen in regards to that."
Given the mayor's denial, the ambiguity of whether it was Mayor
Herrera or Bowen who was concerned about "Frank because he asked a
lot of questions," and the hearsay nature of Reyna's testimony, I
give no weight to Reyna's testimony to prove causation.
There is no other direct evidence sufficient to find causation.
However, a union's prima facie case must ordinarily be shown by
circumstantial evidence, since employers are not apt to announce
discrimination as their motive. Educational Service District 114,
Decision 4361-A.
The types of circumstantial evidence considered in making a prima
facie discrimination case have been described by the Commission as
follows:
[T]he timing of the discharge, disparate treatment of other
employees, whether established procedures (including contract
procedures) were followed, the reasons given for the discharge,
whether those reasons were given to the employee, any shift in
those reasons on the part of the employer, and evidence from
prior unfair labor practice proceedings. See generally, 1
Morris, The Developing Labor Law, 192 (2nd ed. 1983).
Seattle Public Health Hospital, Decision 1911-C (PECB, 1984).(fn:1)
____________________
fn:1 This case was decided on the earlier "Wright Line" (Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enforced, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981),
cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989 (1982)) discrimination standard, rather
than the current "Wilmot and Allison test" adopted in Educational
Service District 114, Decision 4361-A. The earlier discrimination
standard also involved making a prima facie case of discrimination.
The types of circumstantial evidence specified in Seattle Public
Health Hospital are not exclusive, but remain a reliable guide under
the current discrimination test.
Based on analysis of the types of circumstantial evidence suggested
by the Commission in Seattle Public Health Hospital, Decision
1911-C, I find there is sufficient evidence to establish causation.
Established Procedures Regarding Layoff Not Followed Tijerina's
seniority was not considered in deciding to lay him off.
Less-senior employees in his classification were not laid off.
Mabton personnel rule 2.8.2 reads "In determining who in any
classification to be laid off, consideration is to be given to
individual performance and then to seniority in the positions to be
affected." Former City Administrator Ildia Heitzman confirmed that
during her tenure from 1993 to August 2005, the personnel rule was
technically in place. However, she testified that seniority was
always the biggest factor used in determining who to lay off. She
indicated that "the person that was laid off was always the last
person hired" and "it [layoff within a classification] was always
determined by seniority." Irrespective of the wording of personnel
rule 2.8.2, I find that the actual policy of the employer was to
consider seniority in laying off employees.
Mayor Herrera has been either a city councilperson or mayor
continuously since 1993. Given her tenure with the employer, she
probably had knowledge that all prior layoffs were determined
considering seniority. Herrera also admitted that while she was
deciding to lay off Tijerina she "was being told that there's the
seniority in place."
In deciding to lay off Tijerina instead of a less-senior employee,
Mayor Herrera admits that she "didn't look at the seniority." Thus,
her total disregard of any consideration of seniority in making the
layoff decision did not follow the established actual procedure of
considering seniority before deciding who to lay off.
Timing of Tijerina's Termination The union was certified as the
exclusive bargaining representative of a unit of office-clerical and
public works employees by the Commission on February 26, 2007. City
of Mabton, Decision 9597 (PECB, 2007). Tijerina became shop steward
for the union soon thereafter and confronted the mayor about not
paying employees for overtime.
Tijerina was the only unit employee serving on the union negotiating
committee that met with Herrera. The committee met with Herrera at
least five times attempting to negotiate the first union contract.
The negotiations had not produced an agreement by December 28, 2007,
the day Tijerina was laid off.
The decision by the City Council that an employee would have to be
laid off for budgetary reasons was made sometime between December 1
and 17, 2007. Notice of layoff to Tijerina from Mayor Herrera was
dated December 17, 2007. Mayor Herrera thus determined to lay off
Tijerina within a few days of the date the City Council decided a
layoff was necessary. This was the Mayor's first opportunity during
the ongoing contract negotiations to decide who must be laid off for
budgetary reasons.
Reasons Given Tijerina for Layoff Were Misleading The stated reason
in the layoff notice to Tijerina was "budgetary considerations."
While budgetary considerations were a reason for the layoff, the
employer's actual reason to decide to lay off Tijerina shifted after
the union contested his layoff. The employer indicated that
Tijerina was laid off due to his poor work performance, as indicated
solely by his failure to pass a wastewater certification exam six
times.
Disparate Treatment of Other Employees There is evidence of
disparate treatment of other employees by the employer. The
employer retained Noe Trujillo, another employee in the bargaining
unit who was not a union activist and who had not even attempted to
take his wastewater certification exam during his five-year tenure
of employment. Trujillo was, unlike Tijerina, unable or unwilling
to perform water testing at the wastewater treatment plant and
perform all of the operation of the backhoe required of other public
works employees.
More generalized disparate treatment of union-represented employees
and nonunion employees is also in evidence. Prior to certification
of the union as representative of employees in the public works
department, employees in both the public works department and the
police department all received step increases in salaries. Step
increases for the union-represented public works employees were
discontinued after certification. The employer indicated financial
difficulties and a desire to evaluate all of its employees as a
reason to discontinue step increases. No evaluations were ever
performed on either the union or nonunion employees. However, step
increases were discontinued for the union-represented public works
employees while being continued for the nonunion police officers.(fn:2)
____________________
fn:2 The union was later certified to represent the police officers
on May 8, 2008. City of Mabton, Decision 10043-A (PECB, 2008).
Denial of step increases has been dealt with as generalized
disparate treatment. I note that continuing historic step increases
are part of a "dynamic status quo" that should be maintained during
bargaining. See Lewis County Public Utility District, Decision
7277-B (PECB, 2002); Snohomish County, Decision 1868 (PECB, 1984).
Prior Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings No prior unfair labor
practices have been adjudicated.
The union has proven all three elements of its prima facie
discrimination case. Tijerina exercised a right protected by the
collective bargaining statute, he was deprived of some ascertainable
right, and a causal connection exists between his protected union
activity and his layoff.
The Employer's Reasons for Layoff
I find the evidence shows that the city council determined a layoff
was necessary in the public works department for legitimate
budgetary reasons. The employer's articulated non-discriminatory
reason for deciding to lay off Tijerina is that he was the poorest
performing employee of the four employees in the public works
department. The employer claims that its layoff decision was based
solely on Tijerina's failure to pass the wastewater operators
certification test six times.(fn:3)
____________________
fn:3 In its answer and opening statement, the employer also argued
Tijerina failed to report to City-provided training and that he
engaged in insubordinate behavior. However, its post-hearing brief
noted that "[t]he decision to layoff Mr. Tijerina was based solely
on his having failed his wastewater certification test SIX TIMES
during his tenure with the City." Emphasis in original.
A question remaining is whether the reason given by the employer to
select Tijerina for layoff was pretextual. Based on the record, I
find the employer's articulated reason for laying off Tijerina was
pretextual, designed to conceal the employer's true motive.
The record establishes Mayor Herrera was not concerned with
Tijerina's general work performance and did not select him for
layoff because of his general work performance. Tijerina was never
reprimanded or counseled for poor performance. He performed all the
duties of public works employees well and even trained new and
temporary employees. The mayor's admitted concern about Tijerina's
performance was solely that he failed to pass his wastewater
operators certification test six times. I find Tijerina's general
work performance was not a reason articulated by the employer for
deciding to lay him off.
Failure to Pass the Wastewater Plant Operator Exam and Pretext The
employer operates a wastewater treatment plant regulated by the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).(fn:4) Ecology
requires that a certified operator of wastewater treatment plants be
responsible for operation of the employer's wastewater plant. Fines
are possible if the employer does not have a properly-certified
operator responsible at all times for its wastewater treatment plant.
____________________
fn:4 See Chapters 173-221 through -230 WAC.
For many years only the most-senior public works department
employee, Arturo DeLaFuente, was certified to operate the employer's
wastewater treatment plant. DeLaFuente was hired in the 1980's. As
a result of being the only certified employee, DeLaFuente could not
take a vacation without violating Ecology regulations, unless the
employer temporarily employed someone else who was properly
certified. To comply with the regulations, the employer had
temporarily employed a contracted certified wastewater operator to
allow DeLaFuente to take two months of accumulated vacation.
The employer desired that all of its public works department
employees be certified wastewater plant operators. However, no
employee was required by the employer to hold a Ecology wastewater
plant operator certificate or to take the certification exam.
Tijerina has been continuously employed with the employer since 1999
and was the second-most senior employee in the four-person public
works department. He is not certified by Ecology as a wastewater
operator. Tijerina took his first wastewater operator's
certification exam on February 12, 2004. He has taken the exam at
five later times. He scored a low of 57 percent on his first exam
and a high of 63 percent on his last exam on June 26, 2007. A score
of 70 percent is required to pass the exam. Thus, Tijerina failed
to pass the exam six times.
After his last attempt to pass the wastewater plant operator exam,
the employer provided all public works employees with math training
to assist those wishing to take the exam. Tijerina participated in
all the math training provided by the employer.
Although he was not certified as a wastewater plant operator,
Tijerina was not required by either the employer or Ecology to be
certified to perform all of the tests and other work required at the
wastewater plant. Unlike at least one less-senior employee in the
department, Tijerina routinely and satisfactorily performed all of
the Ecology and employer-required daily and weekly wastewater tests
at the plant. Unlike the other employee, he also satisfactorily did
all the other work inside and outside the wastewater plant required
by the employer. Neither the employer nor Ecology found any fault
with Tijerina routinely performing the required wastewater plant
tests or his ability to correctly perform those tests. He simply
was not able to be legally responsible as the certified wastewater
plant operator required by Ecology to oversee operation of the
employer's wastewater plant.
I find the employer's reason articulated to select Tijerina for
layoff was pretextual. The articulated reason was that Tijerina was
the poorest performing employee of the four employees in the public
works department solely because he failed to pass his wastewater
operator certification exam six times. However, this reason is at
odds with Mayor Herrera's stated desire to have motivated employees
who wanted to move forward and to get ahead.
The mayor acknowledged a primary consideration in deciding who to
lay off was "Who's going to handle wastewater treatment, who's going
to be the back-up. You know, how are we going to function. How is
Tootie [DeLaFuente] going to go on vacation, if he needed to take
some vacation, to lower his vacation hours down, and all of that."
However, Jose Campos, the least-senior employee in the public works
department, who was hired in 2005, had passed Ecology's wastewater
plant operator exam in November of 2007, before the mayor decided to
lay off Tijerina. Thus, at the time the mayor decided to layoff
Tijerina, there was no longer a need for a second certified employee
to back-up DeLaFuente's responsibility for the wastewater plant when
he went on vacation.
The mayor's advice to public works employees was, "I would like you
guys to update your guys' portfolios, try to get all the training
you can, so you can get more educated in your field, to make sure
that we had all of the qualifications, certifications." In addition
to considering that Tijerina had failed the certification exam six
times, she also testified that she decided who to lay off based on
"motivation, wanting to move forward, wanting to get ahead." This
rationale might justify retention of Campos, the least-senior
employee, based on qualifications rather than performance. Campos
had passed his wastewater plant operator exam the month before the
mayor decided who to lay off.
But this rationale does not explain the retention of Noe Trujillo,
who is also less-senior than Tijerina. Trujillo was hired in 2003.
Unlike Tijerina, Trujillo showed no interest in wastewater plant
work, performed no wastewater plant work, and never even attempted
to take the Ecology wastewater plant operator certification exam.
Tijerina has performed all of the work required at the wastewater
plant and attempted to pass the wastewater plant operator
certification exam six times since 2004.
To find that the failure to pass an exam that was never required by
the employer was not pretextual, would mean that the layoff of
Tijerina could have been avoided simply by his never having shown
interest in doing work at the wastewater plant or in obtaining
certification. If he had never taken the non-required exam like
Trujillo, Tijerina would have been retained and a less-senior
employee laid off.
Given the anomaly of Trujillo avoiding the layoff by simply not
taking the initiative to ever take the wastewater operator exam, the
mayor's stated reliance on employee motivation in making the layoff
decision, and the fact that there was no need for another employee
to pass the operator exam to provide vacation coverage, I find the
employer's articulated reason for laying off Tijerina is pretextual.
CONCLUSION
The union established a prima facie case of discrimination, and the
employer articulated a non-discriminatory reason for its layoff
decision. The union met its burden of proof of showing that the
reason given was pretextual. Tijerina's union activity was a
substantial motivating factor for the employer's action. The
employer discriminated against Tijerina in reprisal for exercise of
his rights protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW.
REMEDY
The customary remedies in discrimination cases include making the
employee whole for lost wages and benefits, posting of notices to
employees, and public reading of the notice to inform the general
public of the unlawful conduct. Those remedies are granted.
The employer requested any back pay remedy granted be offset by
wages earned. That request is granted as conditioned by the unfair
labor practice remedies regarding back pay contained in WAC
391-45-410. WAC 391-45-410 provides:
In calculating back pay orders, the following shall apply:
(1) Individuals reinstated to employment with back pay
shall have deducted from any amount due an amount equal to any
earnings the employee may have received during the period of
the violation in substitution for the terminated employment,
calculated on a quarterly basis.
(2) Individuals reinstated to employment with back pay
shall have deducted from any amount due an amount equal to any
unemployment compensation benefits the employee may have
received during the period of the violation, and the employer
shall provide evidence to the commission that the deducted
amount has been repaid to the Washington state department of
employment security as a credit to the benefit record of the
employee.
(3) Money amounts due shall be subject to interest at the
rate which would accrue on a civil judgment of the Washington
state courts, from the date of the violation to the date of
payment.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The City of Mabton is a public employer within the meaning of
RCW 41.56.030(1).
2. Teamsters Local 760, a bargaining representative within the
meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3), represents a bargaining unit of
office-clerical and public works employees of the employer.
3. As of December 28, 2007, the employer's public works department
consisted of four employees: Arturo DeLaFuente, hired in and
continuously employed since the 1980's; Frank Tijerina, hired
in and continuously employed since 1999; Noe Trujillo, hired in
and continuously employed since 2003; and Jose Campos, hired in
and continuously employed since 2005.
4. Tijerina was the only unit employee to serve on the union
negotiating committee. He also was the shop steward. As
steward, he brought overtime nonpayment questions to Mayor
Velva Herrera. These activities were protected activities
under Chapter 41.56 RCW.
5. Tijerina was laid off by the employer on December 28, 2007.
The employer's layoff decision deprived Tijerina of some
ascertainable right, status or benefit.
6. A causal connection exists between the protected union activity
described in Finding of Fact 4 and the employer's layoff
decision described in Finding of Fact 5.
7. The employer's established procedure for layoff was to consider
seniority.
8. Seniority was not considered in the employer's decision to
layoff Tijerina.
9. The union was certified by the Public Employment Relations
Commission as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
office-clerical and public works bargaining unit on February
26, 2007.
10. Negotiations for the first union contract had not produced an
agreement by December 28, 2007. On that date Tijerina was
actively serving as shop steward and on the union negotiating
committee.
11. The decision was made by the City Council between December 1,
17, 2007, that an employee would have to be laid off for
budgetary reasons.
12. In response to the Council's decision of the budgetary need for
a layoff, Mayor Herrera determined to lay off Tijerina within a
few days after the date the City Council decided a layoff was
necessary. Notice of layoff to Tijerina from Mayor Herrera was
dated December 17, 2007.
13. The employer's stated reason to lay off Tijerina shifted from
budgetary considerations to his failure to pass a wastewater
certification exam six times.
14. The employer operates a wastewater treatment plant regulated by
the Washington State Department of Ecology. Ecology requires
that a certified operator of wastewater treatment plants be
responsible for operation of the employer's wastewater plant.
15. For many years only the most senior employee in the public
works department, Arturo DeLaFuente, was certified to operate
the employer's wastewater treatment plant. As a result of
being the only certified employee, DeLaFuente could not take a
vacation without violating Ecology regulations, unless the
employer temporarily employed someone else who was properly
certified.
16. To comply with Ecology regulations, the employer temporarily
employed a contracted certified wastewater operator to allow
DeLaFuente to take accumulated vacation.
17. The employer desired that all public works department employees
be certified wastewater operators. However, no employee was
required by the employer to hold a wastewater plant operator
certificate or to attempt to pass the Ecology wastewater plant
operator exam.
18. Tijerina attempted but failed to pass his wastewater operator
certification exam six times between February 12, 2004, and
June 26, 2007.
19. Tijerina was not required by either the employer or Ecology to
be certified to actually perform all the tests and other work
required at the wastewater plant. Tijerina routinely and
satisfactorily performed all the Ecology and employer-required
weekly and daily wastewater tests at the plant. He also
satisfactorily performed all the other work inside and outside
the wastewater plant required by the employer. At least one
less-senior employee did not perform such tests and other work
performed by Tijerina.
20. Sometime after Tijerina's last failure to pass the wastewater
plant operator exam on June 26, 2007, the employer provided
math training to assist all public works employees wishing to
take future exams.
21. Tijerina participated in all the math training provided by the
employer.
22. Jose Campos, the least-senior employee in the public works
department who was hired in 2005, passed Ecology's wastewater
plant operator exam in November of 2007. Campos was not laid
off. As of December 28, 2008, there was not a need for an
additional Ecology certified employee to backup DeLaFuente.
23. Noe Trujillo was hired in 2003 and was not laid off. Trujillo
showed no interest in wastewater plant work, performed no
wastewater plant work, and never attempted to take the Ecology
wastewater operator certification exam. Trujillo also did not
perform some of the backhoe work performed by all other public
works department employees.
24. The Mayor desired and gave consideration in the layoff decision
to having motivated employees who wanted to move forward and to
get ahead.
25. The employer's articulated reason for deciding to lay off
Tijerina was solely because he failed to pass his wastewater
certification test six times.
26. The employer's articulated reason for deciding to lay off
Tijerina was pretextual.
27. Tijerina's protected union activities were a substantial
motivating factor for the employer's decision to lay off Tijerina
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 laying off Frank Tijerina in reprisal for union activities
protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW, as described in Findings of
Fact 3 through 27, the employer discriminated against Tijerina
and violated RCW 41.56.040 and 41.56.140(1).
ORDER
The CITY OF MABTON, its officers and agents, shall immediately take
the following actions to remedy its unfair labor practices:
1. CEASE AND DESIST from:
a. Discrimination against Frank Tijerina in reprisal for his
participation in protected union activities;
b. Interfering with Frank Tijerina's employee rights under
Chapter 41.56 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 41.56 RCW:
a. Offer Frank Tijerina immediate and full reinstatement to
his former position or a substantially equivalent
position, make him whole by payment of back pay and
benefits in the amounts he would have earned or received
from the date of the unlawful layoff to the effective date
of the unconditional offer of reinstatement made pursuant
to this order, and restore his 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 City Council
of the City of Mabton, 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 5th day of February, 2009.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
PAUL T. SCHWENDIMAN, 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 21706-U-08-5535
DECISION 10323 - 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 CITY OF MABTON COMMITTED UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF STATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS:
WE UNLAWFULLY discriminated against Frank Tijerina in violation of RCW
41.56.140(1) by laying him off in reprisal for engaging in protected union
activities.
TO REMEDY OUR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES:
WE WILL offer to reinstate Frank Tijerina to his former position or a
substantially equivalent position.
WE WILL pay Frank Tijerina the wages and benefits he lost as the result of
the unlawful layoff. We will also restore his seniority.
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.