Community College District 14 - Clark, Decision 10441 (CCOL, 2009)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
JAMES CRAVEN, )
)
Complainant, ) CASE 22431-U-09-5727
)
vs. ) DECISION 10441 - CCOL
)
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 14 - )
CLARK, )
) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Respondent. )
___________________________________)
On April 28, 2009, James Craven (Craven) filed a complaint charging
unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations
Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming Community College
District 14 - Clark (employer) as respondent. The complaint was
reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,(fn:1) and a deficiency notice issued on
May 12, 2009, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a
cause of action existed at that time. Craven was given a period of
21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face
dismissal of the case.
____________________
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.
On May 28, 2009, Craven filed an amended complaint and filed an
addendum to the amended complaint on June 11, 2009. The Unfair
Labor Practice Manager dismisses the amended complaint, which
includes the addendum, for failure to state a cause of action.
DISCUSSION
The allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with
employee rights in violation of RCW 28B.52.073(1)(a), domination or
assistance of a union in violation of RCW 28B.52.073(1)(b),
discrimination in violation of RCW 28B.52.073(1)(c), discrimination
for filing charges in violation of RCW 28B.52.073(1)(d), and "other"
unspecified unfair labor practices, by its actions toward Craven.
The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaint.
One, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the claims involving
interference and discrimination. The complaint alleges employer
interference, discrimination, and discrimination for filing charges.
The complaint concerns employer discipline given to Craven and
related employer actions toward Craven, which Craven alleges to be
improper. The Commission does not have general jurisdiction over
disciplinary issues between employers and employees, including
enforcement of the constitutional due process rights involved in
Loudermill hearings. The Commission has jurisdiction only over
allegations concerning violations of employees' collective
bargaining rights. The statement of facts does not indicate that
the employer took actions against Craven in connection with or in
reprisal for his union activities.
Two, the remedies requested are not within the Commission's
jurisdiction to grant. Absent an indication of reprisal for union
activities, the Commission has no jurisdiction regarding the
division chair position, or over other charges made against Craven.
The Commission also has no jurisdiction over alleged criminal
activities. Craven must pursue remedies through the courts.
Three, regarding the allegation of employer 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 has attempted to create, fund, or control a company
union.
Four, regarding the allegation of "other" unfair labor practices,
Craven does not explain the nature of the alleged violations or
specify a statute.
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
Commission has no authority to expand its jurisdiction to include
employment disputes involving allegations of unfair employment
practices, unjust discipline, and violations of federal or state
constitutional rights or statutes, including matters involving
public records requests. Unlike the National Labor Relations Board,
the Commission does not investigate allegations concerning unfair
labor practice violations. The Commission issues preliminary
rulings based solely on the statements of facts filed with
complaints. For this reason, the statement of facts must
specifically identify the union activities of the complainant, as
well as the collective bargaining rights allegedly violated. This
deficiency notice is restricted to determining whether the facts
presented indicate violations of Chapter 28B.52 RCW. Craven has
failed to show that the Commission has jurisdiction in this case.
Amended Complaint
The amended complaint does not re-allege "other" unfair labor
practices; that allegation is considered withdrawn. The complaint
re-alleges domination or assistance of a union, interference,
discrimination, and discrimination for filing charges.
Regarding allegations of employer domination or assistance of a
union, the amended complaint does not provide facts indicating that
the employer has involved itself in the internal affairs or finances
of the union, or attempted to create, fund, or control a company
union.
Regarding the allegations concerning interference and
discrimination, Craven states that evidence of his union activities
can be determined from his service as division chair, since the
position has duties related to collective bargaining. Although only
a union has standing to enforce the provisions of a collective
bargaining agreement, in doing so it may appoint bargaining unit
members as its agents. However, Craven does not present sufficient
evidence to indicate that the union had designated him as its agent
concerning collective bargaining issues, or that the employer was
aware that he was acting as a union agent, rather than as division
chair. Craven's assertion that as a union member and division chair
he had disputes with the employer over faculty work issues, without
more evidence of union involvement, does not provide sufficient
facts to conclude that a cause of action could be found for employer
interference and discrimination in violation of Chapter 28B.52 RCW.
Craven also alleges employer discrimination for filing charges. The
union filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the employer
on March 25, 2008, alleging that the employer had refused to bargain
by failing to provide information related to an investigation of
employee complaints against Craven (those complaints originated in
2007).(fn:2) Craven alleges that discrimination for filing charges is
shown by yet another employee complaint filed against him shortly
after the union filed the unfair labor practice action. However,
Craven does not present sufficient evidence indicating that the
employer retaliated against him for filing charges.
____________________
fn:2 Community College District 14 - Clark, Decision 10221 (CCOL,
2008).
The amended complaint does not cure the defects of the original
complaint. Craven must pursue his objections to the employer's
actions through the grievance procedure or the courts. The
Commission has no jurisdiction in this case.
Addendum to Amended Complaint
On June 11, 2009, Craven filed an addendum to the amended complaint.
The addendum is included in the amended complaint. The addendum
does not provide sufficient facts indicating employer domination or
assistance of a union, Craven's union activity and employer
discrimination for such activity, or employer discrimination for
filing charges. The addendum does not cure the defects of the
amended complaint.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The amended complaint charging unfair labor practices in Case
22431-U-09-5727 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 12th day of June, 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.