University of Washington, Decision 10490 (PSRA, 2009)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
Complainant, vs. Respondent. |
CASE DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT, |
Younglove
& Coker, by Edward E. Younglove III, Attorney at Law, for the
union.
Rob
McKenna, Attorney General, by Mark Yamashita, Assistant Attorney
General, for the employer.
On April 30, 2008, the Washington Federation of State Employees
(WFSE or union) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the
Public Employment Relations Commission (Commission). It then filed an amended complaint May 29,
2008. The union alleged in the complaint
and the first amendment that the University of Washington (employer) interfered
with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a) and refused to bargain
in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(e) by failing and refusing to meet and
negotiate with the union concerning wages for specimen laboratory
technicians. The union filed a second
amended complaint on September 24, 2008, alleging that the employer also
interfered with employee rights, and refused to bargain, by circumventing the
union through direct dealing with employees concerning the salary and
classification for the specimen laboratory technicians. Preliminary rulings were issued, finding that
the complaint and both amendments stated causes of action under RCW 41.80.110(1)(a)
and (e).
Examiner Katrina I. Boedecker conducted a hearing on the matters
on December 11 and 12, 2008, and January 12, 2009. The parties filed post-hearing briefs.
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Did
the employer interfere with employee rights, and refuse to bargain with the
union, concerning wages for the specimen processing technicians when it refused
to agree to the union=s proposal to create a classification series of clinical
laboratory technician as a part of the union=s bargaining unit?
2.
Did the employer interfere
with employee rights, and refuse to bargain by circumventing the union through
direct dealing with employees concerning the salary and classification for
specimen processing technicians, when employer representatives met with two
bargaining unit members and their private attorney?
I find that the employer did not commit any unfair labor
practices. The employer did not refuse
to bargain. It did bargain and offer
several options to the union. The union at
one time agreed to a proposal from the employer, but later reneged. The union essentially took the posture that
there could be only one solution, the one that it proposed. The employer believed that the union’s
proposal would expose it to a skimming charge by another union, as well as be
in contravention of a Commission certification of another bargaining unit.
I find that the employer did not circumvent the union when it met
with certain bargaining unit members and their private attorney. The employer had invited the union
representative to the meeting. When the
union failed to attend, the employer told those present that it could not
resolve anything without the union being involved.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
Refusal
to Bargain
The Commission analyzes the totality of the circumstances in
determining whether a refusal to bargain unfair labor practice has
occurred. "The evidence must
support the conclusion that the respondent's total bargaining conduct demonstrates
a failure or refusal to bargain in good faith or an intention to frustrate or
avoid an agreement." Western
Washington University, Decision 9309‑A (PSRA, 2008) citing City of
Clarkston, Decision 3246 (PECB, 1989).
See also, City of Mercer Island, Decision 1457 (PECB, 1982).
Differentiating between lawful "hard bargaining" and
unlawful "surface bargaining" can be difficult in close cases. The fine line in differentiating the two
reflects a natural tension between the obligation to bargain in good faith and
the statutory mandate that there be no requirement that concessions be made or
an agreement be reached. Walla Walla
County, Decision 2932‑A (PECB, 1988).
An adamant insistence on a bargaining position is not, by itself, a
refusal to bargain. Mansfield School
District, Decision 4552‑B (EDUC, 1995), citing Atlanta Hilton and
Tower, 271 NLRB 1600 (1984). However,
good faith is inconsistent with a predetermined resolve not to budge from an
initial position. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956). Also cited in Western Washington
University.
Direct
Dealing
The complainant union must establish two elements of proof for
employer circumvention allegations:
First, that it is the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees involved, and second, that the employer engaged in direct
negotiations with one or more bargaining unit employees concerning one or more
mandatory subjects of bargaining. In City
of Wenatchee, Decision 2216 (PECB, 1985), the employer was found to have
unlawfully negotiated with three bargaining unit employees about cancellation
of a promotional examination for which they were the only applicants. One employee objected because he desired to
retake the test in order to potentially improve his relative position among the
three. The employer did not involve the
union when it went ahead with cancellation based on its agreement with the
other two applicants.
However, where the employer's description of the status of
negotiations was a truthful recitation of employer and union positions, no
violation was found. Spokane County,
Decision 2793 (PECB, 1987). Also, in the
same decision, no violation was found where an employer official had a casual
conversation about bargaining topics with union officials other than the chief
negotiator.
ANALYSIS
This case is the result of the parties’ response to the Commission=s decision in University of
Washington, Decision 8878-A (PSRA, 2005).
In that decision, the Commission affirmed the Examiner=s Order finding that the employer
had Askimmed@ certain bargaining unit work from
the WFSE’s unit when it reclassified specimen processing technicians working at
Harborview Medical Center to the job classification series of clinical
laboratory technician. WFSE represents a
bargaining unit of 1024 employees working at Harborview Medical Center, 33 of
whom are specimen processing technicians.
Currently, clinical laboratory technicians only work at the
University Hospital and other clinics.
They are in a bargaining unit represented by the Service Employees
International Union, Local 925 (SEIU).
Both of the groups of technicians, at Harborview Medical Center and the
University Hospital, are managed by the employer=s Department of Laboratory
Medicine. The Commission ordered the
employer to restore the status quo ante by returning the technicians working at
Harborview to the classification of specimen processing technician. If the employer still desired a change, the
Commission ordered it to bargain in good faith.
The employer did restore the employees to their status quo
ante. It then notified WFSE of its
desire to reclassify the employees, requesting to bargain with the union before
implementing any changes.[1] The effect of restoring the status quo ante was
that the technicians working at Harborview were returned to their specimen
processing technician classification. From
the employer’s point of view, this fragmented that group from all the
technicians in the Department of Laboratory Medicine who do essentially the
same work in the clinical laboratory technician classification. The clinical laboratory technician
classification, in the SEIU bargaining unit, is on a higher pay schedule than
the specimen processing technician classification.
The union proposes that the
employer create a clinical laboratory technician job classification series for
these employees at Harborview, then recognize the WFSE as exclusive
representative of that classification series.
The employer believes such an action would be in contravention of the
Commission's certification of SEIU as exclusive representative of "all
full-time and regular part-time unrepresented non-supervisory laboratory
technical employees employed by the University of Washington in hospitals and
clinics operated by the University of Washington." University of Washington, Decision
8392-B (PSRA, 2004). Prior to SEIU's
certification on June 15, 2004, to represent employees occupying the clinical
laboratory technician classification, the classification was a pre‑existing
unrepresented civil service classification. The employer=s classification review, conducted in
2003, determined that the clinical laboratory technician classification was the
best fit for the specimen processing technicians working in the employer’s
Laboratory Medicine Department. The WFSE
never challenged the findings of that review, as it had a right to do under its
collective bargaining agreement. The
WFSE has never represented employees holding the job classification of clinical
laboratory technician anywhere in the employer=s system. The employer has consistently expressed its
belief to WFSE that it could not rightfully classify the employees as clinical
laboratory technicians without recognizing the SEIU as the exclusive bargaining
representative for that classification series, because it would contravene the Commission's
authority to define bargaining units.
Even before the Examiner's decision
was issued on the union=s original skimming complaint on March 2, 2005, the employer’s Director
of Labor Relations Louis Pisano had been bargaining with various representatives
of the WFSE about the technicians= classification. Pisano
first offered a proposal to WFSE Field Representative Phyllis Naiad in a letter
dated January 9, 2005, to keep the employees in their clinical laboratory
technician classification, which has the higher pay schedule. In this proposal, Pisano indicated that
moving the employees off the WFSE pay schedule and onto the SEIU=s schedule would also move the
employees into the SEIU bargaining unit.
Naiad rejected the proposal.
After the Commission's affirmation
of the Examiner's decision was issued in September 2006, the employer continued
its efforts to reallocate the Harborview technicians. Pisano met with David Clayborn, a WFSE Field
Representative who, at that time, had replaced Naiad. The two men reached an oral agreement that
the employees would retain their classification of clinical laboratory
technician and would be represented by the SEIU. Soon after their agreement was reached,
Clayborn left employment with the union.
Other union representatives refused to acknowledge the agreement.
Instead of recognizing the terms
agreed to by Clayborn and Pisano, Elizabeth Turnbow, who replaced Clayborn,
again proposed in a letter dated April 23, 2007, that the employer create a
clinical laboratory technician job classification series to be in the WFSE
bargaining unit at Harborview Medical Center.
Lindsey Bruce, another WFSE Field Representative who was also involved
in these negotiations, echoed that proposal. Naiad testified that she believed that the
employer could "create" a classification within the WFSE bargaining
unit under Article 48 of the labor agreement.
Although WFSE believed the employer could have acted under this Article,
apparently it did not think the employer must do so, since it did not file a
grievance that the employer violated this Article of the labor agreement. The employer contends that the contract
language only applies to totally newly created classifications. It does not believe the language is
controlling since the classification, along with its work description, was
already in existence and represented by SEIU.
WFSE has been persistent in its proposal to create a clinical laboratory
technician classification series within the WFSE bargaining unit, in addition to
paying them in parity with clinical laboratory technicians in SEIU. The employer has continually communicated to
the union that it believes this proposal would expose the employer to a Askimming@ complaint from the SEIU and/or be
a violation of the Commission=s certification of the SEIU unit.
What survived from Clayborn's and
Pisano's oral agreement was that, although they would be restored to their
specimen processing technician classification, the employees would retain the
higher wage rate that they were being paid as clinical laboratory
technicians. The employer's position is
that the retention of the higher wage rate, otherwise referred to as "red‑circling,"
resulted from an agreement of the parties, and not by operation of civil
service law or by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement; thus it is
additional evidence of its good faith bargaining.
The employer reads the Commission=s certification of SEIU to mean
that SEIU must represent Laboratory Medicine clinical laboratory technicians
throughout the employer=s medical facilities, including Harborview. It points to the Commission=s language certifying the SEIU to
represent all Alaboratory technical employees employed by the University of
Washington in hospitals and clinics operated by the University of
Washington." University of
Washington, Decision 8392‑B. In that 2004 representation action, the
employer sought to create separate bargaining units for various groups of job
classifications, one of which was clinical laboratory technicians. The Commission held that all of the listed
classifications would be included in one bargaining unit.
The specimen processing technicians
at Harborview have always been under the managerial umbrella of the Department
of Laboratory Medicine, as are clinical laboratory technicians. There are occasions when a clinical
laboratory technician, represented by SEIU, could be seated next to a specimen
processing technician, represented by WFSE, if a clinic or Harborview or
University Hospital was short staffed in a laboratory. This is the scenario that Pisano believed
would expose the employer to skimming charges; this was the scenario he was
trying to prevent.
On November 11, 2007, the specimen
processing technicians petitioned WFSE President Art Wake. They wrote:
As specimen processing technicians (SPT) at Harborview Medical
Center (HMC) we are held hostage by WFSE in dispute with the administration
regarding our reclassification back to Clinical Laboratory Technicians (CLT).
Two years ago we were reclassified as CLT after over twenty years of effort by
SPT’s. Two years have passed and while 400 employees elsewhere in the
university system are enjoying classification as CLT, we at HMC Specimen Processing
Services (SPS) are reclassified as SPTs. Under the new classification we are
not only faced with a salary freeze, we are without the state mandated raise
since July, and we face a roadblock to reclassification the second time around
by the union.
As history has shown, Union purpose and existence is to look out
for a better working environment and equal salary for the worker, yet the
Union’s only interest seems to be making sure they collect what is coming to
them in terms of money and does not care about the welfare of the worker that
they are supposed to serve. For over one year 36 HMC SPS employees were
reclassified back to SPT and left behind while everyone else at the University
of Washington SPS are enjoying the benefits, raises, and the CLT title for
doing the exact same job as we do at HMC SPS.
As a collective group at HMC SPS, we request that WFSE remove the
objection of reclassification and let the University reclassify us back to CLT.
This matter needs to be resolved quickly or we will seek legal action and go to
the media.
The petition was signed by 33
specimen processing technicians.
The union contends that the
employer displayed an entrenched attitude that the WFSE must agree to the
specimen laboratory technicians being removed from its bargaining unit and being
included in the SEIU bargaining unit.
The employer was clear that moving the specimen laboratory technicians
was its goal. Merely having an announced
goal does not constitute a refusal to bargain.
Despite the WFSE's persistent
proposal, Pisano continued to develop alternatives and to meet with WFSE
representatives. The specimen processing
technicians, themselves, continued to pressure WFSE to agree with the
employer’s position. In January 2008,
before this current unfair labor practice complaint was filed and before the
employees retained their own attorney, Pisano extended an invitation to Bruce
to bargain options or creative alternatives to the status quo. Pisano agreed to meet with Naiad, when she
again became assigned to represent the bargaining unit in June 2008. Naiad's letter dated June 26, 2008, demanded
that the employer acquiesce to the union=s initial proposal. The
union never offered alternative proposals to address the concern that the
employer had about its exposure to skimming charges or violation of the Commission=s certification.
Pisano made numerous proposals to
entice the union into letting the technicians go into the SEIU bargaining
unit. The union claims that the employer
was merely surface bargaining.
Additionally, when the employer suggested revisiting a recent court
injunction or a recent arbitration award, both of which actions the union had
won, the WFSE contends that the employer was purposely making proposals that
the union could not accept. The record
shows, however, that the employer was trying to be as creative as possible to
have a win-win situation for both parties.
Pisano was presenting several ideas to see if any would spark an
interest from the union. He did not insist on any specific proposal.
The union has always only insisted
on reclassifying the technicians to clinical laboratory technicians and keeping
them in the WFSE bargaining unit. Pisano
invited the union, in a letter to Naiad in July 2008, to join with it to
petition the Commission to settle the jurisdictional issue. The union refused to join in the petition for
clarification of the bargaining unit.
The Commission ultimately dismissed the employer’s petition as untimely. University of Washington, Decision 10263
(PSRA, 2009).
Pisano invited representatives of both
the WFSE and the SEIU to meet with him to discuss a resolution of the potential
jurisdictional conflicts. Both unions
declined to meet.
Employer Has Not Refused to Bargain
By agreement of Pisano with
Clayborn, and later with Bruce, the wages of the specimen processing
technicians were red-circled, freezing the technicians' wages at the level the
employees were being paid before they were restored to their specimen
processing technician classification.
The employer bargained to have the employees keep their higher wages
until the WFSE scheduled wages under its contract caught up with the red‑circled
wages. When negotiations were opened for
the 2007‑2009 contract, although not addressing the specimen processing
technicians specifically, the parties reached agreement on wage schedules which
applied to all classifications represented by the union, including the specimen
processing technicians. The union did
not take the opportunity during open contract negotiations to negotiate any
other wage rate specifically for the Harborview technicians.
No other agreement could be reached
because the union insisted that the employer agree to create a classification
series of clinical laboratory technician in the WFSE contract. The union did not offer any response to the
employer concern that such action would be in contravention of the Commission's
authority to define the bargaining unit.
Nor did the union address the employer=s concern that the proposal would
also create a jurisdictional conflict between SEIU and WFSE. Pisano explained to various WFSE
representatives why he could not agree to the WFSE’s proposal.
The union gave evidence of numerous
situations where employees employed in the same job classification are included
in different bargaining units represented by different unions. However, its examples did not overcome the
employer’s concern that the employer had never been faced with the language of
the Commission’s certification of the SEIU.
The employer advanced that the other instances were from the time that classified
employees of university employers were under the jurisdiction of the Higher
Education Personnel Board (HEPB), before Chapter 41.80 RCW was passed by the
legislature.
The union's insistence that they
represent employees classified as clinical laboratory technicians in the
Department of Laboratory Medicine at Harborview ignores the Commission's
certification process. In University
of Washington, Decision 8878‑A, the Commission stated that although
the WFSE bargaining unit (in which the Laboratory Medicine specimen processing
technicians were included) was described by the former HEPB by job class, the
"Commission will strictly enforce the [WFSE's] ability to be the exclusive
bargaining representative of work jurisdiction that it was certified to represent." In this current matter, the fact that the
Commission certified SEIU as the exclusive bargaining representative of
"laboratory technicians" within the Department of Laboratory
Medicine, the fact that WFSE has not been certified to represent Laboratory
Medicine's clinical laboratory technicians, and the fact that Harborview
specimen processing technicians are part of Laboratory Medicine raises a
reasonable question of where SEIU's jurisdiction begins and ends. Whether
Pisano was legally correct or not, is not an issue in this case. What is at issue is whether his explanation to
the WFSE as to why he could not come to agreement with their proposal was
predicated on a good faith belief. It
was.
In Snohomish County,
Decision 9834‑B (PECB, 2008), the Commission held that:
While the parties' collective bargaining obligation under RCW
41.56.030(4) 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) (where the
totality of the evidence demonstrated that employer entered negotiations with a
predetermined outcome); see also Flight Attendants v. Horizon Air
Industries, Inc., 976 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1992) (making contract proposals
that employer knew were consistently and predictably unpalatable to the union
and failing to exert every reasonable effort to reach agreement violated the
Railway Labor Act).
[All citations in original.]
The union's persistence in proposing
that the employer create a clinical laboratory technician classification in the
WFSE bargaining unit was predictably unpalatable. The employer continually explained that it
believed the approach would expose it to skimming charges by SEIU. It was also unpalatable because WFSE could
claim skimming if SEIU clinical laboratory technicians were assigned by a
Laboratory Medicine managerial decision to work at Harborview alongside their
WFSE counterparts. It is the WFSE's
persistent proposal that has reduced the negotiations to an exercise in
futility. Pisano's good faith is
demonstrated by his many invitations to the union to join with him to come up
with creative alternatives.
Totality of Circumstances Supports that the Employer Bargained in
Good Faith
The duty to bargain includes a duty
to give notice and provide an opportunity for bargaining prior to implementing
changes concerning a mandatory subject of bargaining. City of Anacortes,
Decision 6863‑B (PECB, 2001); Yakima County, Decision 6594‑C
(PECB, 1999); Spokane Fire District 9, Decision 3482‑A (PECB,
1991).
The employer restored the status
quo ante. Thereafter, the employer and
the union reached an agreement to red-circle the technicians at the higher wage
rate they had been receiving. Then the
employer and the union bargained wage schedules applicable to the entire
bargaining unit, including specimen processing technicians, during 2008 open
negotiations for the 2009‑2011 collective bargaining agreement.
Pisano has continued to bargain
with the union on the reallocation of the technicians. Pisano's "what if@ scenarios were reasonable
proposals to extend to the union in exchange for the removal of employees and
their work from the bargaining unit. The
employer has taken measures to properly classify the Harborview technicians
while protecting the employer from further unfair labor practice
complaints. Pisano even went so far as
to ask representatives of both the WFSE and the SEIU to meet with him to work
out an amicable resolution, and to petition the Commission to resolve the
jurisdictional question.
The union has steadfastly refused
to permit the reallocation and has failed to propose alternatives. As cited
above, the Commission “will strictly enforce the [WFSE's] ability to be the
exclusive bargaining representative of work jurisdiction that it was certified
to represent.” University of
Washington, Decision 8878‑A.
Although the union=s rigid stance on its original proposal to protect its work
jurisdiction might be protected by the Commission, the Commission=s protection will not translate to
interpreting the employer=s conduct as a refusal to bargain.
Employer did not Deal
Directly with Employees
The union alleges that a July 15,
2008, meeting between Pisano, two Harborview specimen processing technicians,
Matthew Vengalil and Robert LaDou, and their attorney, Beth Terrell was
improper interference by the employer with the employees' rights to
representation. Previously, Pisano had
declined to share information with Vengalil over the phone, suggesting that he
contact Naiad, instead. Pisano also
suggested that concerned employees contact the Commission to answer their
questions. All of the specimen
laboratory technicians at Harborview signed a petition to the employer to be
allowed to go into the SEIU bargaining unit.
Vengalil and LaDou testified that the specimen laboratory technicians
hired an attorney out of frustration due to the lack of response by WFSE to
their inquiries. Neither employee
believed that the red-circling properly compensated them. The SEIU wage schedule would increase while
their wages were frozen. The employees
testified that they believed that was an unfair impact on their
retirement.
In fact, the meeting that occurred
between Pisano, Assistant Director of Labor Relations Nancy Dombrowski, the two
employees, and Terrell, was initiated by Terrell. When Pisano received notice that Terrell was
representing the employees and inviting him to meet with them, Pisano informed
Terrell that he would be happy to meet with them, but only if a WFSE
representative were present. Pisano notified Naiad that Terrell was asking to
schedule a meeting with him. Terrell
had telephone conversations with Naiad to explain the purpose of the meeting,
but she believed that she was met with skepticism. Terrell also invited Naiad to attend the
meeting.
On the day of the meeting, Pisano
and Dombrowski met with the two employees and Terrell, but Naiad failed to
attend. Naiad never informed Terrell
that she did not intend to meet with her and the employees. Terrell testified that Pisano expressed concern
about meeting with them in Naiad's absence but did not feel that he could
ignore employees who were seeking information about their work status. Pisano testified that he was concerned that
by retaining their own lawyer, the employees might threaten legal action. He believed that the meeting would likely
defuse that intent. Terrell recalled that
Pisano simply gave them a historical account of the status of the specimen technicians. He explained that he believed the Commission
certification of the SEIU and the WFSE's proposal put the employer in a
precarious position. The meeting lasted
less than an hour.
In all his communication with unit
members, Pisano has respected the rights of the employees to be represented by
their union. Pisano did not withhold
from the union the fact that Terrell was in communication with him, or that she
was attempting to schedule a meeting with him.
Pisano scrupulously advised Terrell that he would be happy to meet with
her if a WFSE representative were present.
This prompted Terrell to invite Naiad to the informational meeting. Naiad failed to respond to Terrell's
invitation.
The employees' actions in meeting
with Pisano were in reaction to their perceived lack of response by WFSE to the
inquiries of the bargaining unit employees.
The employees did not believe that they were getting answers to their
questions from WFSE, so they hired an attorney to obtain information for
them. Terrell and the two employees
appeared at Pisano's office to meet with him and Dombrowski, presuming that
Naiad would be present. Pisano decided
that he would meet with the employees and Terrell in Naiad's absence, but he
was careful about what he communicated to them.
He did not disparage the union. He did not comment on the WFSE's
representation of the employees, other than to provide truthful historical
information. He did not advise the
employees on any actions to take against the union. Pisano merely gave them the historical
information about their status, information that the employees sought from
their union but were not able to satisfactorily obtain. Pisano did not interfere with the Harborview
technicians' rights to representation by the WFSE.
CONCLUSION
The evidence shows that the
employer bargained in good faith with the many different union representatives
concerning the restoration of the status quo and its continued desire to
reallocate the specimen processing technicians to the clinical laboratory
technician classification. The record
establishes that Pisano's explanation to the union as to why he could not agree
to their proposal was based on a good faith belief that to do so would expose
the employer to skimming charges from either the SEIU or the WFSE. Pisano also acted in good faith when he
advanced that agreeing to the union=s proposal would violate the Commission=s certification of the SEIU as the
exclusive representative of the clinical laboratory technicians.
The evidence establishes that the
employer, in fact, bargained and reached agreement with union representatives
on higher wages for the Harborview technicians even though the employer was
ordered to restore the status quo ante, and return them to their original lower
paying classification.
The record also shows that the
employer did not interfere with the rights of the Harborview technicians to be
represented by the WFSE. The testimony
from Vengalil and Terrell indisputably shows that Pisano was scrupulous in his
contact with the employees and their attorney.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
The University of Washington
is an employer within the definition of RCW 41.80.005(8).
2. The
Washington Federation of State Employees is an employee organization within the
meaning of RCW 41.80.005(7).
3. In
September 2006, the Public Employment Relations Commission issued University
of Washington, Decision 8878-A (PSRA, 2005), directing the employer to
restore the status quo ante by returning employees working at Harborview
Medical Center in the clinical laboratory technician classification to the
specimen processing technician classification.
4. In
late 2006 and early 2007, the employer met with various union representatives
assigned to the bargaining unit. The
parties agreed to red-circle the specimen processing technicians at the higher
wage of the clinical laboratory technician classification.
5. The
employer continued to bargain with the union, offering various options to
entice the union to move the employees in question to the clinical laboratory
technician classification which would be represented by the Service Employees
International Union.
6. After
reneging on an agreement, the union returned to its opening proposal. It maintained that position throughout the
bargaining. The employer believed the
union=s proposal would expose it to a Askimming@ charge. Also, the employer questioned the legality of
the proposal given the Commission=s certification of the Service Employees International Union to
represent all of the clinical laboratory technicians of the employer.
7. On
July 15, 2009, the employer met with two bargaining unit members and their
private attorney. The employer had
invited the union representative to the meeting. When the union failed to attend, the employer
told those present that it could not resolve anything without the union being
involved.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The
Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter under
Chapter 41.80 RCW and Chapter 391-45 WAC.
2. By
the totality of its conduct, the employer did not interfere with employee
rights and refuse to bargain with the union concerning wages for the specimen
processing technicians when it refused to agree to the union=s proposal to create a
classification series of clinical laboratory technician as a part of the union=s bargaining unit.
3. The
employer did not interfere with employee rights and refuse to bargain by
circumventing the union through direct dealing with employees concerning the
salary and classification for specimen processing technicians, when employer
representatives met with two bargaining unit members and their private attorney.
ORDER
The
complaint charging unfair labor practices filed in the above-captioned matter
is dismissed.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this
31st day of July, 2009 .
PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
KATRINA
I. BOEDECKER, Examiner
This order will be the final order
of the agency
unless a notice of appeal is filed
with the
Commission under WAC 391-45-35.
[1] In the meantime, the employer and
the union agreed to across-the-board wage and benefit increases during open
contract negotiations in 2006 for the 2007-2009 collective bargaining
agreement. The parties also bargained to
agreement in 2008 for the prospective 2009-2011 collective bargaining
agreement. The agreements are applicable
to all classified employees represented by the union, including the specimen
processing technicians working at Harborview.