University of Washington, Decision 10396 (PSRA, 2009)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
ESSIE BROWN, )
)
Complainant, ) CASE 22353-U-09-5698
)
vs. ) DECISION 10396 - PSRA
)
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, )
)
Respondent. ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
___________________________________)
On March 26, 2009, Essie Brown (Brown) filed a complaint charging
unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations
Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming the University of
Washington (employer) as respondent. The complaint was reviewed
under WAC 391-45-110,(1) and a deficiency notice issued on April 2,
2009, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of
action existed at that time. Brown was given a period of 21 days in
which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of
the case. Brown requested and was granted a two-week extension to
file an amended complaint; Brown filed the amendment on May 4, 2009.
The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the amended complaint
for failure to state a cause of action.
____________________
fn:1 At this stage of the proceedings, all of the facts alleged in
the complaint are assumed to be true and provable. The question at
hand is whether, as a matter of law, the complaint states a claim
for relief available through unfair labor practice proceedings
before the Public Employment Relations Commission.
DISCUSSION
The allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with
employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a), domination or
assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(b),
discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(c), discrimination
for filing charges in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(d), and refusal
to bargain in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(e), by its actions
involving Brown.
The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaint. The
following statute of limitations applies to the complaint:
RCW 41.80.120 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEDURES--POWERS AND
DUTIES OF COMMISSION. (1) The commission is empowered and
directed to prevent any unfair labor practice and to issue
appropriate remedial orders: PROVIDED, That a complaint shall
not be processed for any unfair labor practice occurring more
than six months before the filing of the complaint with the
commission.
The complaint was filed on March 27, 2009. The Commission has no
jurisdiction to remedy allegations of violations occurring prior to
September 27, 2008. Brown alleges that the employer violated her
Weingarten rights in the summer of 2007 and terminated her on March
21, 2008. The complaint is untimely.
Although the untimely complaint renders moot the remaining
allegations, it may be instructive to briefly comment on Brown's
claims of domination of a union, discrimination, discrimination for
filing charges, and refusal to bargain. The name "Public Employment
Relations Commission" is sometimes interpreted as implying a broader
scope of authority than is actually conferred upon the agency by
statute. The agency does not have authority to resolve each and
every dispute that might arise in public employment, but only has
jurisdiction to resolve collective bargaining disputes between
employers, employees, and unions.
Regarding the claim of domination or assistance of a union, none of
the facts alleged in the complaint suggest that the employer has
involved itself in the internal affairs or finances of the union, or
that the employer has attempted to create, fund, or control a
company union.
Regarding the claim of discrimination, the Commission has
jurisdiction only for claims involving discrimination in reprisal
for union activities protected by Chapter 41.80 RCW. The Commission
has no jurisdiction for claims involving racial discrimination.
Such claims must be pursued through human rights agencies or the
courts.
Regarding the claim of discrimination for filing charges, the
complaint alleges no facts indicating that the employer's actions
were in reprisal for Brown filing an unfair labor practice complaint
with the Commission or giving testimony before the Commission.
Regarding the claim of refusal to bargain, the duty to bargain under
Chapter 41.80 RCW exists only between an employer and the incumbent
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees (union).
Individual employees such as Brown do not have standing to process
refusal to bargain allegations.
Amended Complaint
The amended complaint consists of argument, does not add additional
facts, and does not cure the defects to the complaint. The amended
complaint addresses allegations concerning the timeliness of the
complaint, discrimination for filing charges, and discrimination.
The amended complaint does not address the issues of employer
domination or assistance of a union or refusal to bargain. Those
allegations are considered withdrawn.
The untimeliness of the complaint is not mitigated by Brown's
allegation that she relied to her detriment on the union's promise
to pursue grievance arbitration. The Commission cannot waive the
statute of limitations. In addition, the filing of a grievance and
pursuit of grievance arbitration is a matter of contract between a
union member and the union. The Commission does not assert
jurisdiction in matters involving grievances or grievance
arbitration. The Commission only has jurisdiction over
discrimination cases involving the filing of unfair labor practice
complaints. Brown must seek remedies through the union or the
courts.
Regarding discrimination and other constitutional issues, Brown's
claim against the employer remains centered on allegations of
wrongful termination and wrongful treatment in employment. Just as
the Commission does not have general jurisdiction over claims of
racial discrimination, it does not have general jurisdiction over
claims involving disparate treatment and other forms of
discrimination, or violations concerning due process and equal
protection. The amended complaint contains no new evidence
indicating that the employer acted in reprisal for Brown's union
activities protected under Chapter 41.80 RCW. Brown must seek a
remedy through the courts.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The amended complaint charging unfair labor practices in Case
22353-U-09-5698 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 8th day of May, 2009.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
DAVID I. GEDROSE, Unfair Labor Practice Manager
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.