University of Washington (SEIU Healthcare 1199NW), Decision
10397 (PSRA, 2009)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, )
)
Employer. )
-----------------------------------)
ESSIE BROWN, )
)
Complainant, ) CASE 22354-U-09-5699
)
vs. ) DECISION 10397 - PSRA
)
SEIU HEALTHCARE, LOCAL 1199NW, )
)
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 SEIU Healtcare, Local
1199NW (union) as respondent. The complaint was reviewed under WAC
391-45-110,(fn: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 union interference with
employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(2)(a), inducing the
employer to commit an unfair labor practice in violation of RCW
41.80.110(2)(b), discrimination for filing charges in violation of
RCW 41.80.110(2)(c), refusal to bargain in violation of RCW
41.80.110(2)(d), and "other unfair labor practices," by its actions
involving Brown.
The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaint. 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.
The basis of Brown's complaint against the union is that on December
10, 2008, it withdrew the grievance concerning her termination.
This claim is alleged in Brown's assertion that the union interfered
with her employee rights by breaching its duty of fair
representation in the grievance procedure. However, the Commission
does not assert jurisdiction over "breach of duty of fair
representation" claims arising exclusively out of the processing of
contractual grievances. While a union does owe a duty of fair
representation to bargaining unit employees with respect to the
processing of grievances, such claims must be pursued before a court
which can assert jurisdiction to determine (and remedy, if
appropriate) any underlying contract violation.
Regarding the claim of the union inducing the employer to commit a
violation, none of the facts alleged in the complaint indicate that
the union requested the employer to take unlawful action against Brown.
Regarding the claim of discrimination for filing charges, the
complaint alleges no facts indicating that the union'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.
Brown alleges "other unfair labor practices," claiming that the
union misled her for seventeen months regarding taking her grievance
to arbitration. This is directly related to Brown's claim of breach
of the duty of fair representation, discussed above.
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 the allegations concerning the union inducing
the employer to commit a violation, discrimination for filing
charges, and "other" unfair labor practices (the union not
proceeding to arbitration). The amended complaint does not address
the issue of union refusal to bargain. That allegation is
considered withdrawn.
The amended complaint continues to focus on allegations concerning
the union's promise to pursue grievance arbitration on Brown's
behalf, but its failure to do so. The filing of a grievance and
taking the case to arbitration is a matter of contract between a
union member and the union. The Commission does not assert
jurisdiction in matters involving the processing of grievances,
including whether the union arbitrates the dispute. Unions have a
duty of fair representation to their members, but Brown must seek a
remedy through the union or the courts.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The amended complaint charging unfair labor practices in Case
22354-U-09-5699 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.