State - Office of the Governor, Decision 10353 (PSRA, 2009)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL ) CASE 22289-U-09-5685
UNION HEALTHCARE 1199NW, ) DECISION 10353 - PSRA
)
Complainant, ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
vs. ) AND ORDER
)
STATE - OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, ) CASE 22298-U-09-5687
) DECISION 10354 - PSRA
Respondent. )
) ORDER DENYING MOTION
___________________________________)
Douglas Drachler & McKey, LLP, by Paul S. Drachler, Attorney at
Law for the union.
Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, by Alicia O. Ozanich,
Assistant Attorney General, for the employer.
On February 20, 2009, Service Employees International Union
Healthcare 1199NW (union) filed an unfair labor practice complaint
alleging that the State - Office of the Governor (employer)
committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally changing the
method that collective bargaining agreements are negotiated and
ratified under Chapter 41.80 RCW. On February 25, 2009, Unfair
Labor Practice Manager David I. Gedrose issued a preliminary ruling
finding the union's complaint stated a cause of action, and
forwarded the following allegations for hearing:
Employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW
41.80.110(1)(a) and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW
41.80.110(1)(e), by (a) breach of its good faith bargaining
obligations through its failure to submit to the legislature a
request for funds to implement the compensation and fringe
benefit provisions of the collective bargaining agreement
negotiated between the parties (request for legislative
funding), and (b) its unilateral change to the practice
regarding requests for legislative funding, without providing
an opportunity for bargaining.
The employer was given twenty-one days to file an answer.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The union's complaint alleges that the employer committed an unfair
labor practice by unilaterally changing the parties' past practice
and by refusing to submit to the Legislature a request for funds
necessary to implement the compensation and fringe benefit
provisions of the negotiated collective bargaining agreement. The
employer argues, in part, that the economic downturn required the
Director of the Office of Financial Management (OFM) to certify the
parties' tentative agreement as not being financially feasible for
the state. This Commission sees the issue before it as whether the
change in economic circumstances permitted this employer to withdraw
from the tentative agreement that it reached with the union.
The Commission finds that the employer did not commit an unfair
labor practice when the employer withdrew from its tentative
agreement based upon drastic changes in economic circumstances
between the time the contract was negotiated and the time the
employer was required to submit a request for funds necessary to
implement that agreement. The stipulated facts and accompanying
exhibits demonstrate that the employer's reasons for withdrawing
from the tentative agreement were not so illogical as to warrant an
inference that the employer did so in bad faith or to punish the union.
However, the employer did commit an unfair labor practice when it
failed to request further bargaining with the union. The employer's
good faith obligation required it, as the party withdrawing from a
tentative agreement, to request that the union return to the table
and continue the collective bargaining process. The employer is
directed to immediately make a request to the union to return to the
bargaining table to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from the parties' negotiations for a collective
bargaining agreement. In the summer of 2008, the parties began
negotiations for a 2009-2011 collective bargaining agreement. On
September 19, 2008, the parties reached a tentative agreement. At
the time the parties reached agreement, the Washington State
Economic and Revenue Forecast Council (Forecast Council) quarterly
report estimated that the state was facing a $3.2 billion budget
deficit.
On November 19, 2008, the Forecast Council issued its next quarterly
report, entitled Washington Economic and Revenue Forecast, Vol. XXX,
No. 4, and projected that the state's total budget deficit would
approach $5.9 billion. On December 4, 2008, the Washington State
Senate Ways and Means Committee also issued a report identifying
that the state could face a budget deficit of up to $6 billion.
On December, 18, 2008, consistent with Chapter 43.88 RCW, Governor
Christine Gregoire issued her proposed 2009-2011 biennial budget.
That budget failed to include funds necessary to fund the parties'
2009-2011 tentative agreement. On that same day, Diane Leigh, the
Director of the Labor Relations Office (LRO), issued a letter to the
union informing it that the Director of OFM did not certify the
tentative agreement as being financially feasible for the state.
The Union's Complaint
The union's complaint claims that the employer unilaterally changed
the parties' past practices when the Director of OFM explicitly
certified the parties' negotiated collective bargaining agreement as
not being financially feasible for the state, and by the Governor's
failure to submit to the Legislature a request for funds to
implement the compensation and fringe benefit provisions of the
agreement. The union asserts that in previous negotiations with
this employer, once the parties reached a tentative agreement, the
Governor submitted a request for funds necessary to implement the
negotiated agreement without explicit certification from the
Director of OFM that the agreements were financially feasible.
Additionally, the union claims that during the course of
negotiations, the employer never indicated to the union that the
negotiated agreement would not be financially feasible, and that by
waiting until December 18, 2008, to inform the union that the
negotiated agreement was not financially feasible and failing to
submit a request for funds necessary to implement the compensation
and fringe benefit provisions of the negotiated agreement, the
employer negotiated in bad faith.
Motion for Temporary Relief
On February 26, 2009, the union filed a motion for temporary relief
under WAC 391-45-430. Consistent with agency practice, the motion
for temporary relief was docketed as a new case, Case
22298-U-09-5687. The union's motion requested that this Commission
use the authority granted to it under RCW 41.80.120 to petition the
superior court to compel the employer to return the parties to the
status quo by ratifying the negotiated collective bargaining
agreement in a manner consistent with the parties' past practices.
The union's motion also sought a directive compelling the employer
to submit to the Legislature a request for funds necessary to
implement the compensation and fringe benefit provisions of the
negotiated agreement.
To support its argument that temporary relief is appropriate in this
case, the union claimed that not only would it succeed on the
merits, but if temporary relief were not granted, the affected
employees would not have adequate administrative relief because the
legislative session ends April 26, 2009. According to the union,
the administrative process would not be completed in time for the
Legislature to have adequate time to consider legislation to fund
the tentative agreement, and Chapter 41.80 RCW provides no other
mechanism for the union to negotiate a new collective bargaining
agreement.
Unfair Labor Practice Manager Gedrose issued a letter on February
27, 2009, directing the employer to respond to the union's motion
for temporary relief by March 6, 2009. That letter also informed
the parties that the Commission would consider the union's motion at
its March 10, 2009, regularly scheduled meeting, and that the
parties would be permitted an opportunity to present oral arguments
before the Commission.
The employer answered the union's complaint and also filed
objections to the union's motion for temporary relief. With respect
to the employer's response to the motion for temporary relief, the
employer argued that temporary relief motions under WAC 391-45-430
are only appropriate to preserve an existing status quo. Thus,
according to the employer, the union's motion is inappropriate
because the union was attempting to use the temporary relief
proceedings to compel the employer to take a certain course of
action. The employer also questioned whether or not the employees
would actually suffer irreparable harm if the administrative
proceedings were not allowed to continue.
At the March 10 Commission meeting, each party presented its
respective positions regarding the union's motion. The parties also
answered questions asked by the Commissioners. During oral
argument, both parties indicated that they would be filing motions
for summary judgment. Upon completion of oral argument, the
Commissioners recessed for an executive session to discuss the
merits of the motion.
When the Commissioners returned to the regular meeting, Commissioner
McLane moved that the Commission exercise its authority under WAC
391-08-003 to waive the existing Chapter 391-45 WAC unfair labor
practice procedures and directed the parties to prepare stipulated
facts and file cross-motions for summary judgment. Commissioner
McLane's motion also established an expedited briefing schedule and
transferred processing of this matter from the assigned Examiner to
the three-member Commission itself. The three-member Commission
would then issue a final order in this matter.(fn:1) Commissioner
McLane's motion was seconded and unanimously adopted.(fn:2)
____________________
fn:1 Because this decision alleviates the need for the temporary
relief proceeding, this decision shall include an order closing Case 22298-U-09-5687.
fn:2 The unique processing of this case deserves comment. Because
of the nature of the issues involved and the extremely limited
timeframe for these allegations to potentially be redressed, we took
the extraordinary step of having this case resolved by the
Commission itself, as opposed to following the typical
administrative processes established by rule. In most
circumstances, even where a party demonstrates a need for a case to
be processed expediently, parties should expect to follow the
administrative procedures outlined in Chapter 391-45 WAC. Requests
for expedited processing should be made to the Executive Director,
who will evaluate the case and determine if expedited processing is
appropriate. Only in the most extreme of circumstances will this
Commission waive its practices, and parties should not expect the
Commission to entertain motions to waive its rules in a manner
similar to what has been done in this case.
DISCUSSION
Applicable Legal Standard
In 2002, the Legislature enacted the Personnel System Reform Act of
2002 (PSRA) which substantially restructured both the collective
bargaining rights of most state employees and the administration of
the collective bargaining process. Western Washington University,
Decision 9309-A (PSRA, 2008), citing University of Washington,
Decision 9410 (PSRA, 2006). Codified in Chapter 41.80 RCW, the PSRA
granted state and higher education civil service employees "full
scope" collective bargaining rights. Western Washington University,
Decision 9309-A. These new rights permitted employees covered by
the act the opportunity to select an exclusive bargaining
representative and collectively bargain directly with the employer
all matters affecting employee wages, hours, and working conditions.
RCW 41.80.010(3); see also Western Washington University, Decision
9309-A.
Duty to Bargain in Good Faith
RCW 41.80.005(2) defines collective bargaining as "the performance
of the mutual obligation of the representatives of the employer and
the exclusive bargaining representative to meet at reasonable times
and to bargain in good faith in an effort to reach agreement with
respect to the subjects of bargaining specified under RCW
41.80.020." RCW 41.80.005(2) also states that the collective
bargaining obligation "does not compel either party to agree to a
proposal or to make a concession, except as otherwise provided in
this chapter."
A finding that a party has refused to bargain in good faith is
predicated on a finding of bad faith bargaining in regard to
mandatory subjects of bargaining. See Spokane School District,
Decision 310-B (EDUC, 1978). The obligation to bargain in good
faith encompasses a duty to engage in full and frank discussions on
disputed issues, and to explore possible alternatives, if any, that
may achieve a mutually satisfactory accommodation of the interests
of both the employer and employees. While the parties' collective
bargaining obligation under RCW 41.80.010(2) does not compel them to
agree to proposals or make concessions, a party is not entitled to
reduce collective bargaining to an exercise in futility. Mason
County, Decision 3706-A (PECB, 1991)(totality of the evidence
demonstrated that employer entered negotiations with a predetermined
outcome).
The October 1 Deadline and Certification of Agreements
Although the PSRA represents a step toward a more traditional
collective bargaining process, the law still contains unique
features that distinguish it from other similar laws. In Western
Washington University, Decision 9308-A, this Commission recognized
that key provisions of the PSRA that affect the collective
bargaining process include RCW 41.80.010(3)(a) and (b). That
statute directs the Governor to request from the Legislature funds
necessary to implement the compensation and fringe benefit
provisions of any negotiated collective bargaining agreement as part
of his or her budget request. RCW 41.80.010(3)(a). If the funding
request for the collective bargaining agreement is submitted to the
Legislature, the Legislature shall approve or deny funding the
compensation and fringe benefit provisions as a whole. If the
Legislature rejects or fails to act upon the Governor's request for
funds, the parties may reopen the agreed upon tentative agreement
for further negotiations.
A unique provision of Chapter 41.80 RCW is that the Governor may
only make such a request for funds if the compensation and fringe
benefit provisions of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement
are submitted to OFM by October 1 prior to the legislative session
at which the requests will be considered. Additionally, any
negotiated agreement must be certified by the Director of OFM as
being financially feasible prior to being forwarded to the
Legislature for that body's consideration.
RCW 41.80.010, however, is silent on the parties' rights and
responsibilities if the Director of OFM fails to certify the
agreement as financially feasible. The Washington state courts give
"great deference" to PERC's decisions and interpretation of the
collective bargaining statutes. See Public Employment Relations
Commission v. City of Kennewick, 99 Wn.2d 832, 841-842 (1983).
Furthermore, at times, although administrative interpretation of a
statute may approach "lawmaking," the courts have recognized that it
is an appropriate function for administrative agencies to "fill in
the gaps" where necessary to the effectuation of a general statutory
scheme. See Citizens for a Safe Neighborhood v. City of Seattle, 67
Wn. App. 436 (1992). Accordingly, despite the lack of specificity
within RCW 41.80.010 as to the rights of parties in the event the
Director of OFM fails to certify a negotiated collective bargaining
agreement as being financially feasible, this Commission will
interpret that statute in a manner consistent with this agency's
mission of providing expert and uniform adjustment of disputes
arising out of employer-employee relations and the purpose of
Chapter 41.80 RCW.
Withdrawal from Tentative Agreements
Withdrawal from tentative agreements reached in bargaining may be an
indicator of bad faith. Fort Vancouver Regional Library, Decision
2350-C (PECB, 1988), aff'd, Decision 2350-B (PECB, 1989) citing
Arrow Sash and Door Company, 281 NLRB 149 (1986), and Reliable Tool
and Machine, 268 NLRB 101 (1983). Prior to withdrawing from a
tentative agreement, the withdrawing party must provide notice of
its intent and also provide a detailed reason as to why it is
withdrawing from the tentative agreement. Where one party timely
notifies the other of its intent to withdraw from a tentative
agreement and presents valid reasons that are not so illogical as to
warrant an inference that the withdrawal indicates intent not to
reach agreement or to punish the opposing party, it is quite
possible to arrive at a conclusion no unfair labor practice
violation has occurred. Fort Vancouver Regional Library, Decision
2350-C, citing Hickinbotham Bros. Ltd., 254 NLRB 96 (1981); see also
Merrell M. Williams, 279 NLRB 82 (1986).
Application of Standards
Both the employer and the union spent a considerable amount of time
briefing the meaning of the October 1 deadline contained within RCW
41.80.010(3) and how it applies to bargaining for state civil
service employees. This Commission finds it unnecessary to
determine whether the employer changed a past practice, whether the
employer's bargaining agent improperly implied to the union during
bargaining that the negotiated agreement was financially feasible,
or whether the Director of OFM certified the agreement as not being
financially feasible in a manner inconsistent with RCW 41.80.010(3).
Rather, this case can be decided by applying traditional labor law
practices and principles established by the precedents of this
Commission as well as the precedents of the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB).(fn:3)
____________________
fn:3 The Commission will look to persuasive decisions of the
National Labor Relations Board for guidance in applying the law,
where that federal precedent is consistent with Chapter 41.56 RCW.
See Chelan County Public Utility District, Decision 8496-B (PECB, 2006).
Here, the parties reached a tentative agreement on September 19,
2008. There is no allegation that the employer bargained in bad
faith. When the Director of OFM issued his December 18, 2008 letter
informing the union that the negotiated agreement was not
financially feasible, he did not expressly state that the employer
was withdrawing from the tentative agreement. Furthermore, RCW
41.80.010(3) does not characterize certifying an agreement as not
being financially feasible as a withdrawal of a tentative agreement.
However, in a labor relations context, the act of certifying a
collective bargaining agreement as not being financially feasible
under RCW 41.80.010(3)(b) has the same effect and implication as
withdrawing from a tentative agreement, including leaving the
parties without agreed upon terms and conditions of employment. The
question that must now be answered is whether this employer withdrew
from the tentative agreement in a manner consistent with its good
faith bargaining obligation.
At the time that agreement was reached, it appears that the employer
concluded that the compensation and fringe benefit provisions were
financially feasible, even though the Revenue Forecast Council was
projecting an estimated $3.2 billion budget deficit for the
2009-2011 fiscal biennium. See Agreed Statement of Facts; see also
paragraph 11, Declaration of Victor A. Moore. It was only after the
November 19, 2008, Washington Economic and Revenue Forecast which
projected that the quarterly state general fund revenue forecast was
down a combined $1.93 billion, meaning a total budget deficit of
$5.7 billion for the 2009-2011 biennium, did it become readily
apparent to the employer that the agreement would no longer be
financially feasible. Exhibit 10 (Washington Economic and Revenue
Forecast, Vol. XXXI, No. 4); Exhibit 11 (Senate Ways and Means
2009-2011 Budget Outlook); see also paragraph 12, Declaration of
Victor A. Moore. The reasons set forth by the employer for
withdrawing from the tentative agreement are logical and neither
party disputes that the declining economic situation facing the
state is unprecedented. In fact, the union recognizes the economic
situation. The Commission finds that in this situation, the
employer has presented the necessary documentation demonstrating a
need to withdraw from the previously negotiated agreement.(fn:4)
____________________
fn:4 This Commission decides unfair labor practices complaints
based upon the facts presented in each case. Cf. City of Anacortes,
Decision 6830-A (PECB, 2000)(the scope of what issues must be
bargained over should be decided on a case-by-case basis because
that approach permits application of the balancing tests generally
applied by courts and labor boards to such issues). The facts of
this case are unique. Simply put, it is unwise to extrapolate from
this case specific circumstances that would permit a party to
withdraw from a tentative agreement.
The Obligation to Continue Bargaining
Although this employer had the right to withdraw from the negotiated
tentative agreement, its bargaining obligation did not cease. The
good faith collective bargaining obligation does not end once the
parties reach an agreement, rather it is a continuing obligation.
Once a party encounters facts that require it to withdraw from a
tentative agreement, that party has an obligation to timely inform
the other party that it is necessary to withdraw from the tentative
agreement, present evidence supporting such a conclusion, and
request that the other party return to the bargaining table.(fn:5)
With respect to this last requirement, the obligation to request
bargaining must be placed upon the party seeking to withdraw from an
agreement because that is the party that is trying to reopen
negotiations based upon the unforeseen circumstances. The
non-requesting party should not be saddled with any additional
responsibilities in cases such as this.(fn:6)
____________________
fn:5 While nothing in Chapter 41.80 RCW compels either party to
return to the bargaining table once a tentative agreement has been
reached, nothing in Chapter 41.80 RCW precludes either party from
asking the other to reopen a previously negotiated tentative
agreement.
fn:6 Of course, the non-requesting party must still timely respond
to the request for additional bargaining, and must bargain in good
faith consistent with Chapter 41.80 RCW.
Here, once the employer withdrew from the tentative agreement, it
should have immediately made an offer to the union to return to the
bargaining table. Furthermore, although a party is required to
inform the other party of its intent to withdraw from a tentative
agreement at the time it actually does so, this Commission is
troubled by the fact that the employer reasonably knew on or around
November 19, 2008, that the revenue shortfall could, but not
necessarily would, result in its withdrawal from the parties'
tentative agreement. The employer's failure to remain in
communication with the union between November 19, 2008, and the time
it withdrew from the tentative agreement on December 18, 2008, is
not unnoticed by this Commission.
Finally, although the application of the RCW 41.80.010(3) October 1
deadline may preclude the parties from bargaining over economic
matters that could be considered by the 2009 Legislature for
funding, there are certainly other subjects of bargaining that the
parties can discuss. This Commission is not asked to determine what
subjects could be at issue, and will not speculate how negotiations
will proceed. Rather, the focus is on the employer's obligations
once a party lawfully withdrew from the tentative agreement. The
employer's failure to contact the union to request additional
bargaining violates the employer's good faith bargaining obligation,
and constitutes an unfair labor practice.
CONCLUSION
This Commission is keenly aware of the impact that this decision
will have on the bargaining unit employees. Additionally, we are
very troubled by the employer's failure to take steps to engage the
union and keep it informed of the process. Nevertheless, our
responsibility is to formulate labor policy for the State of
Washington that allows employers to properly react to unprecedented
economic situations such as the one before it, and this decision
creates the proper balance given the lack of certain clarity within
Chapter 41.80 RCW.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The State of Washington is a public employer within the meaning
RCW 41.80.005(8). The Office of the Governor, the Office of
Financial Management, the Department of Health, and the
Department of Social and Health Services are agencies of the
State of Washington.
2. Service Employees International Union Healthcare 1199NW is a
bargaining representative under RCW 41.80.005(9), and
represents bargaining units of registered nurses at the
Department of Health and the Department of Social and Health
Services.
3. The State of Washington and Service Employees International
Union Healthcare 1199NW are parties to a collective bargaining
agreement from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2009.
4. The parties' Agreed Statement of Facts are incorporated by
reference.
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. No genuine issue of material fact exists and, under WAC
10-08-135, the parties' motions for summary judgment are
granted.
3. The Office of the Governor did not violate RCW 41.80.110(1)-
(e) and (a) by failing to submit a request for funds necessary
to implement the compensation and fringe benefit provisions of
the parties' negotiated agreement.
4. The Office of the Governor violated RCW 41.80.110(1)(e) and (a)
when it failed to request that Service Employees International
Union Healthcare 1199NW, return to the bargaining table once it
withdrew from the parties' tentative agreement.
ORDER
1. Service Employees International Union Healthcare 119NW's Motion
for Temporary Relief, Case 22298-U-09-5687, is denied and that
case is CLOSED consistent with the terms of this order.
2. To remedy Case 22289-U-09-5685, State - Office of the
Governor, its officers and agents, shall immediately take the
following actions to remedy its unfair labor practices:
A. CEASE AND DESIST from:
(1) Refusing to engage in collective bargaining by
failing to immediately request that Service Employees
International Union Healthcare 1199NW return to the
bargaining table when the Office of the Governor
withdrew from the parties' tentative agreement.
(2) 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.
B. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to effectuate the
purposes and policies of Chapter 41.80 RCW:
(1) Give notice and request to negotiate in good faith
with Service Employees International Union Healthcare
1199NW for a 2009-2011 collective bargaining agreement.
(2) Post copies of the notice provided by the Compliance
Officer of the Public Employment Relations Commission
in conspicuous places on the premises at both the
Department of Social and Health Services and the
Department of Health where notices to all bargaining
unit members 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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, the 1st day of April, 2009.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
MARILYN GLENN SAYAN, Chairperson
PAMELA G. BRADBURN, Commissioner
THOMAS W. McLANE, Commissioner
CASE 22289-U-09-5685
DECISION 10353 - PSRA
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 STATE - OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
COMMITTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF STATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
LAWS:
WE UNLAWFULLY failed to request that Service Employees International Union
Healthcare 1199NW return to the bargaining table to continue negotiations
for a 2009-2011 collective bargaining agreement when we withdrew from the
previously negotiated tentative collective bargaining agreement.
TO REMEDY OUR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES:
WE WILL immediately request that Service Employees International Union
Healthcare 1199NW return to the bargaining table to negotiate a 2009-2011
collective bargaining agreement
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.