King County, Decision 9495 (PECB, 2006)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 174, )
) CASE 18752-U-04-4765
) DECISION 9495 - PECB
Complainant, )
) CASE 19045-U-04-4847
) DECISION 9496 - PECB
vs. )
) CASE 19151-U-05-4866
) DECISION 9497 - PECB
KING COUNTY, )
) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Respondent. ) AND ORDER
___________________________________)
Schwerin Campbell Barnard, LLP, by Dmitri Iglitzen, Attorney at
Law, for the union.
Nick McCudden, Labor Negotiator, joined on the brief by Nancy
Buonanno Grennan, Attorney at Law, for the employer.
On August 9, 2004, the General Teamsters Union, Local 174 (union)
filed an unfair labor practice complaint against King County
(employer) with the Public Employment Relations Commission. The
employer operates a solid waste utility with transfer stations in
the rural parts of King County. The union is the exclusive
bargaining representative of the transfer station operators (TSO's)
and drivers. The union charged that the employer refused to bargain
about the installation of video equipment at certain sites.(fn:1) A
preliminary ruling was issued sending the claim to hearing.
____________________
fn:1 This first case was docketed as case 18752-U-04-4765.
On December 13, 2004, the union filed a second complaint charging
that the employer refused to bargain the decision to use video
cameras for the surveillance, and subsequent discipline of,
employees.(fn:2) That complaint received a preliminary ruling which
sent the charge to hearing and consolidated it with the first
complaint.
____________________
fn:2 That complaint was docketed as case 19045-U-04-4847.
The hearing on these two consolidated complaints commenced on
January 20, 2005.
The union filed a third complaint on January 26, 2005, alleging that
the employer refused to bargain about additional cameras installed
in 2004 and refused to provide the union information it needed to
bargain about the installation of those cameras.(fn:3) This complaint
received a favorable preliminary ruling on January 31, 2005.
____________________
fn:3 The third complaint was docketed as case 19145-U-05-4866.
A second day of hearing, which had been scheduled on the first two
complaints, was continued to allow for the consolidation of the
third complaint. The hearing reconvened on April 1, 2005, at
Seattle, Washington, before Examiner J. Martin Smith. The parties
informed the Examiner, soon thereafter, that they were in settlement
discussions. They requested a delay in the time set to file their
closing written arguments. Settlement talks failed more than a year
after the close of the hearing. The parties filed post-hearing
briefs in April 2006.
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Did the employer make a unilateral change in working conditions
when it placed video cameras at certain transfer stations?
2. Did the employer refuse to bargain the effects of its decision
to use cameras when it used the video for the surveillance and
discipline of employees?
3. Did the employer fail to bargain in good faith regarding
installation of additional cameras in 2004?
4. Did the employer fail to provide bargaining information
requested by the union concerning the additional cameras?
The Examiner rules that the employer did not make a unilateral
change in working conditions when it installed video cameras in
2003. The Examiner determines that the employer failed to bargain
the effects of the installation of video cameras when it began to
use them for surveillance and discipline of employees. The employer
did, however, have an obligation to bargain its decision and the
effects to add cameras in 2004 since the employer had begun using
information from the videos as evidence against employees. The
employer provided the information the union needed to meet its
bargaining obligations regarding the additional cameras.
Issue 1: Duty to Bargain Initial Placement of Video Cameras
If the employer makes a unilateral change regarding a mandatory
subject of bargaining, it commits an unfair labor practice under
RCW 41.56.140(4). City of Sumner, Decision 1839-A (PECB, 1984).
King County maintains an extensive public works system which
provides garbage collection, refuse drop off, and recycling services
to its citizens. A key component to this system is a network of
"transfer stations" which are county work sites where the public can
bring their refuse to either dump them in designated areas or
recycle certain discarded materials. These sites are usually open
during daylight hours Monday through Saturday; they are usually
staffed on a full-time basis.
Video cameras were installed at Cedar Falls Transfer Station in
1994, after a series of thefts of funds at the "scale-houses," or
ticket booths, where the public paid to dump their refuse. The
cameras were pointed at the cashier's location as well as at gates
to the property.
At the time of the complaint, the parties were operating under a
collective bargaining agreement which was effective January 1, 2003,
through December 31, 2005. The use of fixed-location video cameras
at the transfer stations is not mentioned in the agreement.
Extensive testimony at the hearing described the use of
fixed-position video cameras. They were originally installed at
eight of the transfer-collection locations, including the sites at
Cedar Falls, Enumclaw, and Vashon. The cameras were installed at
the urging of the employer's insurance and risk-management
professionals. They hoped that the video would help the employer
defend itself from the cost of liability lawsuits, mostly from
citizens being injured while using the transfer sites.(fn:4)
____________________
fn:4 Cedar Falls Transfer Station is often confused with the Cedar
Hills landfill site. Cedar Hills landfill is the only remaining
such facility in King County. The public is not typically permitted
to dump refuse at the Cedar Hills site.
Although the idea of installing video cameras at transfer stations
pre-dates 2003, in May of 2003 the solid waste division solicited
suggestions from its staff to improve operations and cut costs. The
employer gave notice to the staff that it would adopt the suggestion
to "increase video surveillance at a variety of locations . . . to
increase security and safety. The County will bargain effects with
Unions when required."
The installation and use of video cameras was an ongoing project.
The employer contends, based upon Emergency Dispatch Center,
Decision 3255-B (PECB 1990), that allegations raised by the union in
its first claim exceeds the six-month statute of limitations at RCW
41.56.160. Hence, they should be dismissed as untimely. The record
shows that the allegations were filed August 9, 2004. Thus the
allegations could encompass actions back to February 9, 2004. The
employer met with the union on February 11, 2004, to tell the union
that it was installing more cameras. The employer began to install
cameras at Enumclaw and Vashon on April 1, 2004, and later the
employer installed cameras at Cedar Hills. Therefore, the
allegations are timely as to the installation at those sites.
The employer was not obligated to bargain the decision to install
video cameras. Until a technological change impacts a working
condition, the decision falls into the realm of entrepreneurial
control. In Kitsap County, Decision 8402-A (PECB, 2005), the
Examiner ruled that a computerized sick-leave tracking system (ACTS)
was not a meaningful change in the practice of monitoring sick
leave. The ACTS system sent an electronic "red-flag" for employees
whose yearly average of sick-leave use suggested misuse of sick
leave without medical justification.(fn:5)
____________________
fn:5 Though the decision to use a computer tracking system was not
itself a mandatory subject of bargaining, the Examiner found that
the union had the right to bargain the effects of the decision. Such
effects could be whether an employee often or usually a needed
doctor's statement attached to each use of sick leave. See
discussion of the duty to bargain the effects of the video cameras below.
The use of video cameras at the "workplace" is permitted in certain
places, including public school buses, public watercraft-ferry
operations, and county courthouses. See Thurston County, Decision
4848-A (PECB 1995) (video cameras in jail that included a "master
control center"). When deputy sheriff employees were temporarily
assigned to a public ferry, which had video cameras on it, the
examiner found that there was no intent to view the work of
employees for disciplinary purposes. An ordinary and reasonable
employee would not expect that he or she was being "observed" for
anti-union or disciplinary purposes. Skagit County, Decision 6348,
6348-A (PECB, 1998).
Certain emergency situations where local government employees
operate are subject to safety measures which do not have to be
bargained. See Washington State Ferries, 282-MEC (2001) and King
County Fire Dist. #16, Decision 3714 (PECB, 1991). In the latter
decision, the employer assigned EMT employees to become certified in
operation of portable cardiac machines, although the basic EMT
certification did not require such training. The examiner ruled
that the assignment did not rise to the level of a mandatory topic.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows private-sector
employers to make changes in the workplace without bargaining with
the union when the decision has more of an effect on the employer's
efficient operation and productivity than employee working
conditions. In a case similar to Kitsap County, an employer
installed an electronic time clock, to replace hand-written "in and
out" cards, without first bargaining with the union. Rust Craft
Broadcast, 225 NLRB 327 (1976). As with the ACTS sick-leave
tracking system, the NLRB found no violation for installation of
electronic time-cards. See also, Metromedia Inc v NLRB, 99 LRRM
2743 (8th Cir. 1978) and Columbia Tribune Publishing, 86 LRRM 2078
(8th Cir. 1974).
On the facts presented here about the cameras placed at the Cedar
Hills, Enumclaw, and Vashon sites, the employer's interest in safety
and security out balances any change of working conditions. The
employer did not violate RCW 41.56.140 (4) when it installed these
video cameras.
Issue 2: Failure to Bargain Impacts of Video Cameras
Even without an obligation to bargain a decision, the employer may
be obligated to bargain the "effects" of the decision. In Grays
Harbor County, Decision 8043-A (PECB, 2004), the employer did not
commit an unfair labor practice by eliminating its Employee
Assistance Program contract, but was required to negotiate the
effects of the change as a remedy. In City of Wenatchee, Decision
6517-A (PECB, 1998), the Commission ruled that discontinuing a
"light-duty" program for police officers had the effect of
increasing the use of sick leave. Although the decision was
permissive, the impact upon sick leave usage was a mandatory
subject. As cited above, in Kitsap County, Decision 8402-A (PECB,
2005), the employer was allowed to institute an "absence control
tracking system." The Commission, however, ordered the employer to
bargain the impacts of that decision since the tracking system had a
surveillance effect on bargaining unit employees, leading to
possible discipline.
The union in this case makes a similar argument, that the imposition
of new camera systems impacts the employees because of the
possibility of using evidence from the video tape for discipline.
Did the parties negotiate the impacts of video cameras?
During May 2003, the parties had ratified and signed a collective
bargaining agreement for 2003-2005. George Raffle was chief
spokesperson, and signed as a business agent, for the union. Robert
Railton represented the employer.
After the ratification of the 2003-2005 agreement, the employer
asked the union to bargain "particular" new issues which arose after
the first of the year.
The parties met on May 13, 2003. Railton testified that at that
meeting:
A: I verbally went down the list of issues that we'd be
taking up in this particular bargaining process and said
that this is the county's view of its bargaining
obligation with respect to each one of these particular
items and asked the unions whether or not they agreed or
disagreed, with respect to my position as to the extent of
our obligation.
Q. Was (sic) video cameras included in that list?
A. Yes, it was . . . Effects bargaining only. And there was
no disagreement to that position.
Railton made a "what-if" proposal on three issues at that meeting.
Raffle requested that the video camera issue be removed from the
proposal so that the union could address it at a later time,
inasmuch as his members were most concerned about a work schedule
issue.
The parties met again in May. Certain union witnesses kept notes
from the meeting. They reminded employer negotiators that the video
cameras had recorded examples of employee misconduct or otherwise
had been used in discipline of employees, both for reprimand and
exoneration. Although driver Keith Hendrickson recalled some
employer team members "assured that the cameras weren't to be used
for surveillance . . . ," examples were discussed where they had
been so used. TSO Ed Baker, who was on the union bargaining team,
remembers Railton talking about certain thefts by employees being
caught on camera. Railton also addressed a grievance of an employee
disciplined for reporting late for work. The employer relied on the
video tapes to prove the absence from the work station.
Hendrickson testified that the main issue in May 2003 was the
alteration of the hours of operation for transfer stations since the
employer proposed cuts in services and employee layoffs. He recalled
that issues involving video cameras, GPS tracking and "mag strip"
issues were part of the employer's "what-if" package. The union
took the position that video cameras issue should be separated from
the remainder of the "what-if" proposal. Raffle wanted to discuss
the video cameras at a later date, if and when more cameras were
installed.
Railton believed the union had abandoned bargaining about the video
cameras. In August 2003, he told the solid waste division officials
that "nobody had responded to my invitation to bargain . . . ."
Did the employer properly bargain the effects of the cameras?
The employer had another message for the bargaining unit employees
in August 2003. Operations Manager Brad Bell told employees by memo
that additional cameras would be installed at Cedar Hills, the
landfill site. He also reported that consultant studies would
continue to find locations to improve "safety and security" and
monitoring of the recycling areas of the transfer stations. "In the
next few weeks, we will begin work to assess transfer stations and
the landfill for placement of new and/or additional cameras. This
work is being done to improve the safety of employees and customers
and for the security of Solid Waste Division (SWD) assets . . . . "
There was no mention, in this memo, about whether the employer would
bargain the effects of this project.
On October 9, 2003, Railton sent an e-mail to Raffle and Ed
Murietta, soon to replace Raffle. Railton asked that they respond
within an 18-day period ending on October 27, 2003:
All - The Solid Waste Division currently has video cameras
outside all scale houses, at the Cedar Hills entrance gate and
in a variety of locations at the Skykomish drop box. To
enhance safety and security for employees and others who come
onto the property, and to protect division assets, the division
is looking to install additional video cameras. The division
is looking to install cameras in the first quarter of 2004 in
the following locations:
* Cedar Hills: . . .
* Enumclaw and Vashon transfer stations: . . .
. . . the division is looking to install cameras at the
remaining transfer stations, in similar locations, at a later
time.
The cameras will provide a record of activity at the sites and
will be used to investigate suspicious activity, trespassing,
vandalism, theft or other safety and security matters.
If you believe there are bargainable issues that you'd like to
address with county, please contact me by COB October 27, 2003.
If I do not hear from you by 5 pm on the 27th, I will conclude
that you do not have an issue to bargain or that you are
waiving your bargaining rights, if such rights exist. . . .
(emphasis added).
The Examiner concludes that the two-week period given the union to
negotiate effects of the video cameras is inadequate to meet the
employer duty to bargain in good faith.
* In a related case regarding installation of GPS satellite units
in refuse trucks (also a change sought by this employer) the
Examiner ruled that a "two-week-and-out" strategy was
inappropriate per RCW 41.56.140. See King County, Decision
9204 (PECB, 2005). As with the instant case, the employer's
notification to the bargaining unit was vague: "We are looking
to install GPS units . . . this year." As here, the effects of
GPS units in trucks were subject to events weeks in the future.
* A two-week period to respond or to bargain does not allow
adequate time for a party to make a proposal, let alone request
mediation, as would be its right under RCW 41.56.100.
* The employer authorized the installation of additional cameras
in August 2003, which were scheduled to be installed in the
first quarter of 2004. Yet in October 2003, the employer gave
the union only 18 days to bargain the effects of installation
of the cameras at new locations.
* George Raffle's statement in May 2003 that he wanted to discuss
the video cameras at a later date was sufficient to keep the
issue open. He did not waive the union's right to bargain.
The union was placed in a tough position by Railton's October
strategy. PERC has long held that "deadline" bargaining is usually
bad faith bargaining, unless there are legislatively imposed
guidelines for negotiation. Shelton School District, Decision 579-B
(EDUC, 1984); Federal Way School District, Decision 232-A (EDUC,
1977). A fuller explanation from Shelton is instructive: "With
respect to time limits and deadlines, in most cases, neither party
can impose on the other the obligation of agreeing to a particular
item by a certain date, although in a mature bargaining
relationship, which this relationship was not in 1976, the parties
may be expected to respect one another's convenience courteously."
This strategy is particularly worrisome when the employer requests
mid-term negotiation and is impatient to make a change. City of
Seattle, Decision 1667-A (PECB, 1984).
The employer violated RCW 41.56.140(4) when it refused to bargain in
good faith regarding the effects of the video cameras. The employer,
in fact, was using tapes from the cameras for disciplinary purposes.
In bargaining the effects, the union could make proposals regarding
access to the tapes, its right to review them, and its ability to
use them in processing grievances of bargaining unit employees.
Issue 3: Duty to Bargain Installation of Additional Cameras for
Surveillance and Discipline of Employees
By October 2003, the employer had notified the union that it was
going to install new cameras at the Cedar Hills landfill, and the
Enumclaw and Vashon transfer stations. The notice indicated that
installation would be during the "first quarter" of 2004. The
cameras were actually installed after April 1, 2004.
Certain exhibits revealed video fields of view towards all "red
line" danger areas where the public could expect to be in danger.
These same exhibits show that the additional cameras were to be
mounted in such a way that workers in the scale house and other TSO
employees could be routinely observed during their work shifts.
Cameras were to be aimed at the employee parking lot at the Cedar
Hills landfill. This confirms that the employer could use these
cameras for surveillance of employees.
On July 26, 2004, a formal demand to bargain was made about the
installation of additional new video cameras at Cedar Hills,
Enumclaw, and Vashon. This demand came from the new union business
representative, Dave Allison. Railton responded to the union demand
on July 30, saying that the employer had met its bargaining
obligation on this issue and that the union had waived its right to
negotiate further. He offered an opportunity to "meet and confer" on
the issue. An offer to "meet and confer" does not comprise an offer
to bargain the effects of the video cameras. Railton's offer did
not cut off the union privilege to demand bargaining.
The decision to install new cameras differs from the 2003 decisions
because the employer originally intended the cameras for
insurance-safety purposes. By 2004, it was clear that the cameras
were to be used for disciplinary purposes as well. Hence working
conditions were impacted. An example is the May 2003 discussion
about discipline for employees caught arriving late on camera.
Although assured in 2003 that the cameras were not to be used for
surveillance, credible witnesses observed that the newest cameras
installed in 2004 were "live-feed" systems where employees could be
observed while working in live-time by a monitoring station run by
the Solid Waste Department managers.
A review of the exhibits shows that the cameras to be installed at
the Cedar Hills landfill are to be aimed at lanes A, B, C and D of
the entry but also at the employee's parking lot, where presumably
no members of the public would be permitted. These cameras could
be used for "investigations" of employee conduct.
The Examiner finds that the employer must bargain the decision and
the effects of the installation of additional cameras.
Issue 4: Duty to Provide Information for 2004 Installations
The union made an effort to acquire documents related to the Request
for Proposal and the awarded contracts to install the cameras. On
November 18, 2004, Railton sent an e-mail to union attorney Dmitiri
Iglitzin saying that any meetings with Allison on the video cameras
issue had to include Iglitzin but not a "cast of thousands . . . ."
Railton again said the employer would move ahead and install the new
cameras.
Iglitzin's response on November 19 was to ask four specific
questions about the new cameras. He asked where video cameras would
be located, how many cameras would be added, when they would be
installed, and what the cameras would view. He also requested a copy
of the installers' bid documents and related correspondence.
Railton responded about the cameras at the Cedar Hills landfill,
Vashon, and Enumclaw. He was specific in his responses, saying that
there would be five cameras at Vashon including one pit view, one
compactor view, and one trailer view. He also detailed new
information for cameras planned for Bow Lake, Algona, Factoria, and
other sites not mentioned in the union's July 24 demand to bargain
letter.
The union actually escalated its request for information on December
9. The union reviewed the June 10, 2004, invitation to bid and then
asked for "all post-June 10, 2004 documents directly related to this
Invitation . . . ." (emphasis added). On December 13 the union
followed up with a demand for all documents "prior to June 10, 2004
. . . " that related to the Cedar Hills, Enumclaw, and Vashon sites.
The employer entered a voluminous document the first day of hearing
detailing the e-mail traffic between the employer and the union
attorney. The series of e-mails between Railton and Iglitzin show
that the employer was providing information sought by the union. See
City of Bellevue, Decision 3085-A (PECB, 1989), aff'd, Wn.2d 373
(1992), and Port of Walla Walla, Decision 9061-A (PECB, 2006).
The Examiner concludes that the employer's distribution of these
documents has been sufficient enough to comply with the union's
requests for information necessary for bargaining.
REMEDY
The employer will offer the union, Teamsters Union Local 174, an
adequate time and place to negotiate the impacts of the video
cameras at all of the King County transfer locations, particularly
addressing the issues of employee privacy and use of the cameras in
discipline-related matters.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. King County is a "public employer" within the meaning of RCW
41.56.030(1).
2. Teamsters Union Local 174 is an exclusive bargaining
representative within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3).
3. King County operates a solid waste collection and disposal
system. The system includes the Cedar Hills landfill and the
Enumclaw and Vashon transfer stations.
4. In 1994, the employer installed fixed-position video
cameras at eight of the transfer stations. More cameras
were installed in 2003. All the cameras were positioned
for safety and security reasons. The cameras were aimed
to view a particular areas, but not with an end of
watching any particular behavior of the employees.
5. During contract negotiations in May 2003, the employer and the
union discussed the use of video cameras capturing and
recording misconduct by employees at the work site.
6. On October 9, 2003, the employer sent an e-mail to union
leaders stating that the employer was "looking to install"
additional video cameras in the first quarter of 2004 at sites
at Cedar Hills, Enumclaw, and Vashon. The employer gave the
union until October 27 to request bargaining on the new cameras
or the effects of the installations.
7. The new cameras for Cedar Hills, Enumclaw, and Vashon were
installed on or after April 1, 2004.
8. On July 26, 2004, union business representative Dave Allison
wrote a formal demand to bargain about the installation of new
cameras at Cedar Hills, Enumclaw and Vashon.
9. On July 30, 2004, the employer responded that the union had
waived its bargaining rights in October 2003. The employer
declined to discuss the issues further.
10. Union attorney Dmitiri Iglitzin requested specific information
from the employer about the cameras and the bid documents on
November 19, 2004. On December 9 and again on December 13,
2004, the union asked for certain documents related to the bid
and cameras.
11. Between November 19, 2004, and January 2005, the employer
supplied the union with all the information it requested.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in
this matter under Chapter 41.56 RCW and 391-45 WAC.
2. By its decision to install video cameras at certain refuse
transfer stations and landfills in 2003, to improve safety for
members of the public and security for its own operations, the
employer did not violate RCW 41.56.140(4).
3. By its use of video from the cameras as evidence in employee
discipline matters, the employer impacted employee working
conditions. In its subsequent communication with the union on
July 30, 2004, claiming that the union had waived its
bargaining rights with regard to the surveillance-video camera
issue decision and impacts involving the cameras installed
after April 1, 2004, the employer failed to bargain in good
faith. Thus, the employer violated RCW 41.56.140(4) and (1).
4. The employer supplied the union with the information that the
union requested regarding the post April 2004 installation of
video cameras.
ORDER
KING COUNTY, its officers and agents, shall immediately take the
following actions to remedy its unfair labor practices:
1. CEASE AND DESIST from:
a. Using video from cameras installed at landfills or
transfer stations in disciplinary actions against TSO's or
drivers who are members of the bargaining unit.
b. Refusing to bargain with Teamsters Local 174 about the
decision to install video cameras used in the solid waste
utility when the video can and will be used in
disciplinary matters of employees.
c. Refusing to bargain with Teamsters Local 174 about the
impacts of the decision to install video cameras used in
the solid waste utility when the video can and will be
used in disciplinary matters of employees.
d. Acting in any other manner which interferes with,
restrains or coerces its employees in the exercise of
their collective bargaining rights under by the laws of
the state of Washington.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to effectuate the
purposes and policies of Chapter 41.56 RCW:
a. Give notice to and, upon request, negotiate in good faith
with Teamsters Union Local 174, as to the decision to
install a video camera surveillance system at landfills
and transfer stations in the King County solid waste
system. Give notice to and, upon request, negotiate in
good faith with Teamsters Union Local 174, as to the
decision to install a video camera surveillance system at
landfills and transfer stations in the King County solid
waste system.
b. Give notice to and, upon request, negotiate in good faith
with Teamsters Union Local 174, as to the effects of
installing a video camera surveillance system at landfills
and transfer stations in the King County solid waste system.
c. Post copies of the notice attached to this order in
conspicuous places on the employer's premises where
notices to all bargaining unit members are usually posted.
These notices shall be duly signed by an authorized
representative of the respondent, 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.
d. Read the notice attached to this order into the record at
a regular public meeting of the City Council of King
County. Permanently append a copy of the notice to the
official minutes of the meeting where the notice is read
as required by this paragraph.
e. 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.
f. 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, this 22nd day of November, 2006.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
J. MARTIN SMITH, Examiner
This order will be the final order of the
agency unless a notice of appeal is filed
with the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
NOTICE
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION, A STATE AGENCY, HAS HELD A LEGAL
PROCEEDING IN WHICH ALL PARTIES WERE ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND
ARGUMENT. THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT WE HAVE COMMITTED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF A STATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAW, AND HAS ORDERED
US TO POST THIS NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES:
WE UNLAWFULLY failed to bargain in good faith with Teamsters Local 174 when
we refused to bargain the impacts of our decision to install security
cameras, when they can and will be used in disciplinary matters.
TO REMEDY OUR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES:
WE WILL give notice to and, upon request, negotiate in good faith with
Teamsters Union Local 174, concerning the decision and effects of the
decision to install video cameras at landfills and transfer stations,
particularly the landfill at Cedar Hills and the transfer stations at
Enumclaw and Vashon, when the video can and will be used in disciplinary
matters involving TSOs and Drivers in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT use any video tape from the surveillance cameras in the solid
waste system for discipline of employees until we have completed our
bargaining obligations.
WE WILL NOT, in any manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their bargaining rights under the laws of the
State of Washington.
DATED: _________________
KING COUNTY
_________________________________
By: Authorized Representative
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of
posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Questions concerning this notice or compliance with the order issued by the
Commission may be directed to the Public Employment Relations Commission,
112 NE Henry Street, Suite 300, PO Box 40919, Olympia, Washington
98504-0919. Telephone: (360)570-7300.