Seattle School District, Decision 9858 (EDUC, 2007)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
ROBERT FEMIANO, )
)
Complainant, ) CASE 20689-U-06-5272
)
vs. ) DECISION 9858 - EDUC
)
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Respondent. ) AND ORDER
)
___________________________________)
Robert Femiano appeared pro se.
Faye Chess-Prentice, Deputy General Counsel, Seattle School
District, appeared for the employer.
On October 5, 2006, Robert Femiano (complainant) filed an unfair
labor practice complaint against the Seattle School District
(employer), alleging interference with protected employee rights
under RCW 41.59.140(1)(a) and (b). A preliminary ruling was issued
on November 21, 2006, finding a cause of action to exist. J. Martin
Smith of the Commission staff was assigned as Examiner. A hearing
was conducted at Seattle, Washington, on February 2, 2007. Briefs
and memoranda of authority were filed to complete the record in this
case.
ISSUES
Issue 1: Did the employer interfere with Robert Femiano's rights in
violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(a) by the comments of a building
principal regarding the Flight Program grievance?
Issue 2: Did the employer interfere with a labor organization in
violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(b) when it suggested to Femiano that
he resign his role as a building representative for the union?
Based on the record as a whole, the Examiner rules that the employer
did not violate RCW 41.59.140(1)(a) by its comments to employee
Robert Femiano, and did not interfere with his rights.(fn:1) However,
the employer's actions do constitute a violation of RCW
41.59.140(1)(b) for interfering with the activities of a labor
organization, and appropriate remedies must be directed.
____________________
fn:1 The Examiner denied Femiano's motion at the beginning of the
hearing to strike or dismiss the respondent's affirmative defenses.
As a legal matter, they were not frivolous or egregious.
Issue 1: Did the employer interfere with employee Robert Femiano in
violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(a)?
The Law to be Applied
Chapter 41.59 RCW prohibits interference with and coercion of
employees for exercising their rights to engage in union activity.
Interference violations arise from circumstances where the employees
in a work environment endure a reasonable apprehension that their
protected activities for themselves or another employee may result
in punishment. RCW 41.59.140(1)(a).
The reasonable apprehension test states that the Commission must
examine whether a typical employee in similar circumstances
reasonably could perceive the conduct of the employer as a threat of
reprisal or force or a promise of benefit related to the pursuit of
rights protected by the statute. Community College District 19
(Columbia Basin), Decision 9210 (PSRA, 2006); King County, Decision
6994-B (PECB, 2002); Brinnon School District, Decision 7210-A (PECB,
2001). The employer's intent or motivation is not a factor or a
valid defense, nor is it necessary to show that the employees
involved were actually interfered with or restrained. Though not
substantial, the burden of proof rests with the complainant. See
also University Place School District, Decision 9341 (EDUC, 2006).
Case law defines the limits to activities protected by the statute.
The complaining employee must be engaged in some activity reasonably
related to union activity. This would not include being present
when a strongly worded letter is presented to a school
superintendent; see Dieringer School District, Decision 8956-A
(PECB, 2007). Nor would the behavior be protected if it was
outrageous and near-insubordinate, as in City of Seattle, Decision
9439-A (PECB, 2007).
Analysis
Robert Femiano is a primary grade classroom teacher at Sanislo
Elementary School in the Seattle School District. At all times
relevant to these claims, the building principal (manager) at
Sanislo was Eric Nelson.(fn:2) During the 2005 through 2007 period,
Femiano served as the elected "building representative" for the
union, the Seattle Education Association (SEA), an affiliate of
Washington Education Association (WEA). The SEA has long
represented teachers in Seattle, and the parties have signed a
collective bargaining agreement that covers the school years from
2004 through 2009.
____________________
fn:2 Mr. Nelson now works for the Oakland (CA) Unified School District.
The Flight Program - The controversy in this case revolves around a
special school program called "Flight." Not all of Seattle's public
schools achieve equally on standardized achievement tests, such as
the state-mandated Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL).
The Flight Program began as an idea of the SEA to help its teachers
improve student learning and assessment in targeted school
populations. The first phase, in 2004, began in the city's central
area. Teachers in the affiliated schools agreed to coordinate
curriculum ideas, involve themselves in race and diversity awareness
training, and work with affected parent groups. Part of the parent
involvement was through a series of teacher "home visits" to homes
of their students. The district and the union also agreed on
additional pay to teachers for the additional hours of work involved
in this program. Flight Program Phase 2 (Flight 2) shifted focus to
the West Seattle area of the city, and most specifically the schools
in the Chief Sealth High School attendance area. Those schools are
Sanislo, Roxhill, and Arbor Heights Elementaries, and Denny Middle
School. Plans to implement Flight 2 for the Chief Sealth area for
the 2006-07 school year began in December of 2005, and meetings with
school representatives and SEA personnel took place in January 2006.
In September 2005, the relationship between Femiano and Nelson
appeared cordial. In fact, Nelson sent an e-mail to Femiano at that
time congratulating him on his classroom set-up and his working with
students at the second grade level. But beginning in September of
2005, many teachers at Sanislo voiced opposition to the Flight
Program and Flight 2 details. Several thought the program was
"heavy-handed" and needed fewer mandatory features when assigning
teachers.
In a memo dated December 15, 2005, Nelson told the Sanislo staff
that he had attended two planning meetings for Flight 2, and that
the staff needed to be prepared for a January staff meeting. He
mentioned that he was meeting with a representative from WEA about
the Flight 2 program, and if there were questions to contact "me or
our SEA building rep Robert Femiano . . . ."
The Grievance - Even though SEA as an entity supported Flight and
the Flight 2 project, a group of teachers at Sanislo led by
Femiano filed an official grievance under the labor agreement.
That grievance was filed April 1, 2006, and requested as a remedy
that Flight 2 participation be optional. Femiano and at least 15
teachers joined in the grievance.
Steve Pulkkinen and Wendy Campbell of the SEA/WEA came to the school
to discuss the complaints. In April, Nelson was asked to attend a
meeting with the teachers and a third WEA representative, Ben Ibale.
Soon thereafter, Nelson and Femiano engaged in a verbal
confrontation which occurred at Sanislo. Generally, Nelson engaged
Femiano in his classroom in discussions about the filing of the
grievance, and sought to immediately begin grievance discussions at
the Step One level (informal talks) to progress the issue along.
Since Femiano was the SEA building representative, as well as a
grievant, Nelson decided to begin discussions with him. The
discussion became quite heated and is the source of the analysis
which follows.
Femiano-Nelson Interactions - Femiano contends that certain
activities in April 2006 were illegal under RCW 41.56.140. What
activities are posed as interfering conduct?
* On the morning of April 7, Nelson inquired of Femiano if he was
available to talk "as a colleague" and "member of the Sanislo
staff" about the Flight 2 project. Femiano answered the
afternoon of the same day, saying that his "legal situation"
with the district was still unresolved, and that his personal
attorney advised him not to meet with his principal.(fn:3)
Further, Femiano had signed the grievance of April 1 and
supported that grievance.
____________________
fn:3 Femiano's reference to his "own legal situation", and whether
his personal attorney as opposed to the WEA union attorney - had
to be present for any meetings with Nelson, was not explained in
this record. But it probably added to the confusion about the grievance.
* Nelson's response was made April 13. "As our SEA rep, I need
to be able to speak with you about any issue, especially in the
case of a grievance like the one about Flight Schools currently
submitted at Sanislo . . . ." wrote Nelson. "If you are unable
to meet with me individually, then please bring your attorney.
If this is not an option, then please relinquish your title as
building rep and hand it off to someone that is able to talk
with me in situations such as this, allowing us to brainstorm
solutions to the various issues of our school."
* Five days later, on April 18, Femiano answered that, "as SEA
representative, it feels inappropriate, if not [un]ethical, for
me to meet with any district official to privately discuss this
matter while it is under grievance. Since it is now in the
hands of SEA staff, any attempts to intervene on my behalf
might be interpreted as an attempt to undermine a legitimate
contractual process . . . the grievance belongs to the group
that signed it." SEA was copied with this e-mail.
* Later that evening, Nelson answered Femiano's message. In that
message, Nelson said, "Robert . . . I was following the
grievance procedures under [the . . . contract.] It states
[that] an employee shall first take up [the] complaint or
problem with his/her immediate administrative supervisor in
private informal discussion and every effort shall be made to
adjust the complaint or deal with the problem . . . ."
Nelson urged Femiano to take a leadership role, and indicated
that he believed the informal meeting was required by the labor
agreement.
* Nelson approached Femiano in his classroom the next day, April
19, while students were absent. In that conversation, Nelson
attempted to ask Femiano questions about why the grievance had
been filed and what particular problems the Sanislo teachers
saw as a concern. Nelson described the day in these terms:
And so, as I did every day, I walked around the school and
said hello to the kids and I stopped in to discuss the
plausibility of us getting together and talking about his
views on the flight school. And so I came to his room and
I sat down and began to talk to him about it. And at that
juncture the total interaction maybe lasted eight to ten
minutes. And he became agitated with me and wasn't
sitting down, was walking around the room and stating that
it wasn't my issue, that it was something larger than that
and that he would not meet with me . . . .
Another teacher, Leslie Day, who had joined in the filing of the
grievance, overheard the conversation. She recalled "emphatic
yelling" coming from Eric Nelson, and a flat response from Femiano
being "I don't want to talk about this now." She did not recall
Nelson telling Femiano that he should resign as SEA rep, but did
remember Nelson saying loudly that Femiano "does not care about the
kids . . ."
The Alleged Interference - In making his case, Femiano relies upon
Grant County Hospital, Decision 8378-A (PECB, 2004) and University
Place School District, Decision 9341 (EDUC, 2006). The Examiner
agrees that an employee working on a grievance, whether filing on
his own or his union's behalf, is engaged in protected activity.
See Renton Vocational Technical College, Decision 7441-A (CCOL
2002). But Femiano wasn't being punished for raising a viable
grievance issue as in Renton, nor was he engaged in negotiation of a
labor agreement and meeting with the hospital board as in Grant
County. A closer case on the facts is University Place, where the
school principal confronted a teacher who was a building
representative like Femiano. There, the principal was completing a
performance evaluation and complained loudly that the
representative's "pot stirring" might lead to libel or slander
allegations that the principal could allege in litigation against
the teacher. The Commission found an egregious threat and a clear
interference. There is no such egregious action here.
Femiano preferred to be heard loud and clear when he and a group of
teachers opposed their union's stance on the issue of the Flight 2
implementation. But he then clammed up and professed inability to
communicate on matters that the contractual obligation directed
uniquely to him. The rules of the game must be considered: Chapter
41.59 RCW would mean little if communication at the bargaining table
or mid-contract was only in one direction. Collaboration between
management and labor requires communication between building
principals and building representatives. Nelson was not asking
Femiano for a personal opinion about Flight 2, but instead an
official gesture in an official capacity, called for by the
grievance procedure. These acts are allowable under the bargaining
law.
Femiano argues for the first time in his brief that the collective
bargaining agreement does not require the first step of the
grievance procedure to begin with a building representative, but
with the employee. It follows, argues Femiano, that Nelson's
approach to Femiano was coercive and threatening. This argument
might be plausible except that Femiano himself was one of the
teachers named as a complainant in the grievance, and hence was an
"employee" as well as union representative for purposes of the
informal grievance step.
Clearly, the school principal here was upset with his employees over
their attitude about the Flight 2 project. Standing alone, such
actions do not establish an unfair labor practice. Certain
attitudes in the workplace must be tolerated, such as a
"we-won't-like-you-anymore" list used in King County Public Hospital
2, Decision 9112 (PSRA, 2006). On the facts in this record, Femiano
could not reasonably suspect that he would be punished or
disadvantaged by taking his point of view. The employer expressed a
deeply-held political belief and asked for his cooperation. There
is no interference violation.
Issue 2: Did the employer interfere with a labor organization in
violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(b) by its comment to Femiano that he
should resign so that another could discuss an ongoing grievance?
The facts alleged and proved at hearing make a better case for
employer domination and interference with the union - here, the
SEA/WEA than in support of interference with Femiano personally as
a teacher in the bargaining unit. Nelson's comments were made in
the heat of the moment, but the heat went to the issue of who should
be appointed union representative for purposes of the labor agreement.
The Law to be Applied - It is an unfair labor practice for an
employer "[t]o dominate or interfere with the formation or
administration of any employee organization or contribute financial
or other support to it..." The statute forbids employers from
involving themselves in the internal affairs of unions, from showing
a preference among two or more unions competing for the same group,
or from providing financial or other support to a union, any of
which could compromise the independence of the union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees. Tacoma School
District, Decision 5446-D (EDUC, 1997). In Pierce County, Decision
1786 (PECB, 1983), the Commission found that a violation required
proof of employer intent to assist one union to the detriment of
others. An employer may not involve itself in the "internal affairs
or finances of a union," nor may the employer create, fund or
control a "company union." City of Anacortes, Decision 6863 (PECB,
1999).
Cases before PERC involving employer domination of and interference
with employee organizations fall into three broad categories:
First, competing union situations where the employer assists one
union over a competitor union, usually where a petition has been
filed under WAC 395-25-070. In those situations, the employer must
cease negotiations with any incumbent union, but must maintain the
"status quo" until an election is conducted. See Renton School
District, Decision 1501-A (PECB, 1982); Quillayute Valley School
District, Decision 2809-A (PECB, 1988); City of Edmonds, Decision
3018 (PECB, 1988); State of Washington (Corrections), Decision
7870-A (PSRA, 2003).
Second, illegal or unauthorized granting of leave for incumbent
union officials, which might have the effect of financial assistance
to that union. See Washington State Patrol, Decision 2900 (PECB,
1988); Enumclaw School District, Decision 222 (EDUC, 1977); City of
Pasco, Decision 3582 (PECB, 1990).
Third, other acts indicating an employer intent to interfere with or
influence union activity or policy, such as the withdrawal of
deduction of incumbent union dues and fees, or use of public
facilities and equipment. See Washington State Patrol, Decision
2900; Pierce County, Decision 1786 (PECB, 1983); King County,
Decision 2553-A (PECB, 1987); Spokane Transit Authority, Decision
5742 (PECB, 1996).
The tests applied for whether there has been interference or
domination must show one of the following components by clear and
convincing evidence:
* intent by employer to control or interfere with the formation
or administration of a union such as would compromise the
independence of that labor organization;
* intent to dominate internal affairs of the union, e.g.,
selection of union officials, bargaining team members, policy
decisions;
* contribution of financial support, money or office space and
release time;
* recognizing a non-majority union when a majority is not
indicated or supportable;
* overt and stated preferences for union A over union B.
Analysis
In this situation, Nelson could have responded in a number of lawful
ways during the grievance discussion with Femiano. Nelson could
have asked, ". . . doesn't the contract say that meetings on an
informal basis ought to take place soon after the grievance is
filed?" Or he could have said, "I think the union reps need to
discuss the grievance and attempt to resolve it." Unfortunately,
Nelson cut to the political chase and inferred quite strongly that
the union needed to appoint someone other than Femiano as a building
representative. In saying that, Nelson interfered with SEA/WEA
authority to appoint or allow election of building representatives.
RCW 41.59 was designed to allow the employee's representatives to be
of the employee's choosing -- not the employer. In the certificated
teacher situation, that means local building representatives, as
well as the exclusive bargaining representative.
It is important to note that by April 17, Nelson already knew that
the grievance was not going to be advanced to Step One or Step Two.
In fact, he knew this on or about April 5, because he had an e-mail
from Steve Pulkkinen of the SEA:
Thanks, Eric, for what it's worth, I concur with your
suggestion on how to proceed. I'm meeting with Ben [Ibale] in
the am [morning] and will talk about the "grievance" that they
are asking for. I have no intention of filing it . . . Steve.
Nelson also knew that, once a grievance had invoked the Informal
Discussion stage and no resolution was made, it would be up to the
SEA to go forward or withdraw the grievance.
Although no one can fault Nelson's interest in moving the grievance
forward towards settlement, there is a real danger in Nelson's
comments of interference with the exclusive bargaining
representative. The statement to Femiano that another
representative ought to be appointed had this effect. Nelson was
also thinking beyond the particular grievance, by asking Femiano to
find a replacement "who is able to talk to me in situations such as
this, allowing us to brainstorm solutions to the various issues of
our school." (emphasis added.)
An interference claim is to be found here under the third category
listed above, since the Examiner finds an intent to interfere with
the internal affairs of the union, especially regarding selection of
union officials and the administration of grievances. Taken
together, Nelson's e-mails to Femiano were an illegal interference
under RCW 41.59.140(1)(b).
In a way slightly different from the petitioner's analysis, the
Examiner sees the precedents in two separate Richland School
District cases as applicable here. In Richland School District,
Decision 7388 (PECB, 2001),(fn:4) the Commission allowed a cause of
action to go forward concerning allegations that the district placed
a union representative on unpaid leave as a disciplinary matter, and
thus prevented the union from communicating with its membership.
The union there also alleged hostile treatment of its business
representative on a number of occasions.
____________________
fn:4 It should be noted, however, that this case was never advanced
to hearing.
That series of facts re-surfaced in a subsequent case, Richland
School District, Decision 8454 (PECB, 2004), where a hearing was
held and conclusions of law were stated. In that case, the union
alleged domination and interference with the union under RCW
41.56.140(1) and (2). The Examiner found a failure to bargain for
the employer's unilateral limitation on an issue of the number of
union members who could attend a school board meeting determining
grievances, as well as a derivative interference violation under
41.56.140(1). The facts in that matter did not justify a domination
claim because no particular union officer was interfered with. But
that is the case here.
Also on point is Yakima School District, Decision 8612 (EDUC, 2004).
This case arose when teachers were upset with a number of
bargaining issues, and directed their ire at the superintendent. A
strike was imminent, and bargaining was under watch of a PERC
mediator. A YEA/WEA member who had commented at the union's
Executive Board meeting had been admonished by her building
principal for those comments. The district was accused of
misrepresenting the position of the union; the principal or the
superintendent blocked any district e-mails sent to "ALL TEACHERS."
PERC's preliminary ruling said these all stated causes of action for
violations of RCW 41.59.140(1)b), domination and interference.
Again, although this case did not ultimately result in a hearing,
the case illustrates that such employer interference, if proven,
would be considered a violation of the statute.
One could argue that, since the employer interfered with and
unlawfully dominated the labor representative under RCW
41.59.140(1)(b), there might also be an interference violation with
individual employees, on a derivative basis, as per RCW
41.59.140(1)(a). Research of National Labor Relations Board cases
based upon 8(a)2 of the National Labor Relations Act, making it
illegal for an employer to dominate, interfere with or assist a
labor organization, suggests a negative answer.
A narrow and often obscure line divides actual or attempted
unlawful "interference" or "assistance" from what constitutes
unlawful "domination." Board and court decisions often create
confusion by using the three terms indiscriminately to describe
similar conduct. The difference between domination and
interference or assistance is a matter of degree. Domination
of a union constitutes an irreversible subjugation of the union
to the employer's will; interference or assistance is
misconduct sufficiently less severe that the union is deemed
capable of functioning as a union once the interference or
assistance is removed.
See Liquor Salesmen Local 195 v NLRB, 452 F.2d 1312, 78 LRRM 2641
(1971), and generally, The Developing Labor Law, (Hardin, ed.) ABA,
Third Edition pp 303-310 (1996).
The Examiner declines to explore a pathway of law where the
Legislature has provided no road-map; there is no violation for
interference under RCW 41.59.140(1)(a). But based upon the facts
presented here, the Seattle School District crossed over the line,
and violated RCW 41.59.140(1)(b).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Seattle School District is an employer within the meaning
of RCW 41.59.020(5).
2. The Seattle Education Association/Washington Education
Associ-ation is an employee organization within the meaning of
RCW 41.59.020(1), and represents a bargaining unit composed of
all nonsupervisory certificated employees of the employer.
3. The employer and the union have a negotiated collective
bargaining agreement in effect for the 2004-2009 school years.
4. Robert Femiano has been an elementary school classroom teacher
in the Seattle School District from 2005 through 2007. During
the 2005-2006 school year, Femiano was also the building
representative for the union at Sanislo Elementary School.
5. Eric Nelson was the building principal for Sanislo Elementary
School during the 2005-2006 school year.
6. Sanislo Elementary was chosen to participate in a special
achievement program called "Flight." Planning for the second
phase, Flight 2, began at Sanislo in December 2005. The
program was designed and endorsed by the union, and emphasized
home visits by teachers, work with affected parent groups, and
improving student learning and achievement scores on State of
Washington standardized tests. Special provisions for employee
participants of the program were negotiated into the collective
bargaining agreement.
7. A number of teachers at Sanislo expressed reservations about
the Flight 2 program. Fifteen teachers, including Femiano,
filed a grievance with the employer in April 2006, requesting
that Flight 2 participation be optional.
8. In an attempt to understand the grievance and to hold an
"informal meeting" under the labor contract, Nelson dispatched
a series of e-mails and visited Femiano personally at his
classroom in April 2006.
9. Femiano took the position that no "informal meeting" was
necessary regarding the grievance, and that, in any event, he
would not participate in such a meeting. Although Nelson was
angry and loud in a face-to-face meeting with Femiano on April
19, Nelson made no threats, exacted no punishments, and offered
no inducements.
10. In an e-mail to Femiano, Nelson asked Femiano to relinquish his
position as SEA building representative if he was unable to
meet regarding the grievance, and to give the position to
"someone that is able to talk to me in situations such as this,
allowing us to brainstorm solutions to the various issues at
our school."
11. Femiano never met with Nelson or any other district official
regarding the grievance. Eventually, the exclusive bargaining
representative withdrew the grievance, and it was never
submitted for arbitration.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in
this matter under Chapter 41.59 RCW.
2. By its actions in April 2006, the employer did not interfere
with employee Robert Femiano in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(a).
3. By its actions in April 2006, the employer interfered with the
exclusive bargaining representative in violation of RCW
41.59.140(1)(b).
ORDER
The Seattle School District, its officers and agents, shall
immediately take the following actions to remedy its unfair labor
practices:
1. CEASE AND DESIST from:
A. Interfering with or dominating an exclusive bargaining
representative by requesting that a building
representative relinquish his position with the union;
B. In any other manner, interfering with, restraining or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their collective
bargaining rights under Chapter 41.59 RCW.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to effectuate the
purposes and policies of Chapter 41.59 RCW:
A. 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.
B. Read the notice attached to this order into the record at
a regular, public meeting of the Seattle School District,
and permanently append a copy of the notice to the
official minutes of the meeting where the notice is read
as required by this paragraph.
C. 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.
D. 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 21st day of September, 2007.
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.
Case 20689-U-06-5272
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
NOTICE
THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION CONDUCTED A LEGAL
PROCEEDING IN WHICH ALL PARTIES HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND
ARGUMENT. THE COMMISSION RULED THAT WE COMMITTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN
VIOLATION OF STATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAWS, AND ORDERED US TO POST THIS
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES:
WE UNLAWFULLY interfered with the appointment of personnel and shop stewards
used to file grievances for represented employees in the Seattle Education
Association bargaining unit;
TO REMEDY OUR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES:
WE WILL NOT interfere with the appointment of personnel and shop stewards
used to file grievances on behalf of represented employees in the Seattle
Education Association bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their collective bargaining rights under the
laws of the State of Washington.
DATED: _________________ SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
BY: ______________________________
Authorized Representative
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days, and must not be
altered or covered by any other material. Questions about this notice or
compliance with the Commission's order may be directed to the Public
Employment Relations Commission (PERC), 112 Henry Street NE, Suite 300, PO
Box 40919, Olympia, Washington 98504-0919. Telephone: (360) 570-7300.
The full decision will be published on PERC's web site, www.perc.wa.gov.