City of Marysville, Decision 10052 (PECB, 2008)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
In the matter of the petition of: )
)
HEATHER M. GREGORY ) CASE 21568-E-08-3339
)
Involving certain employees of: ) DECISION 10052 - PECB
)
CITY OF MARYSVILLE ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
)
___________________________________)
On March 5, 2008, Heather G. Gregory filed a petition seeking to
decertify the Teamsters Union, Local 763 (union) as exclusive
bargaining representative of certain program specialists employed by
City of Marysville police department. The petition included a copy
of the current collective bargaining agreement between the union and
the employer which was in effect January 1, 2005 through December
31, 2007. That agreement indicated the employer recognized the
union as the sole collective bargaining agent for all City of
Marysville office-clerical, public works, parks and recreation and
emergency services support employees, excluding supervisory,
confidential and casual employees.
A routine letter was mailed to the employer requesting a list of
employees. In a response filed on March 24, 2008, the employer
indicated that the program specialist classification is included in
a larger bargaining unit represented by Teamsters Union, Local 763
and provided a list of only the program specialists.
On April 4, 2008, the union filed a letter stating the unit of
office-clerical employees consists of approximately 40 employees and
the program specialist classification is part of a historically
larger unit.
The petitioner was notified that the petition appeared to seek an
inappropriate "severance-decertification" affecting only a portion
of the employees who have historically been included in a much
larger bargaining unit and that a petitioner must take the unit as
it exists and cannot add or remove positions. The petitioner was
given a period of 10 days in which to show cause why the petition
should not be dismissed. The petitioner responded on April 17,
2008, stating that the petition was not seeking to add or remove
positions but rather to change representation.
On its petition, the box that was checked indicated that the
petitioner was seeking decertification. The showing of interest
submitted in support of the petition had the following statement:
"I no longer wish to be represented by the union
Teamsters, Local 763".
DISCUSSION
A decertification petitioner must take the unit as it exists. WAC
391-25-210(1) states:
In proceedings on a petition for "decertification" under WAC
391-25-070(6)(c) or 391-25-090 (2), the parties shall not be
permitted to remove positions from or add positions to the
existing bargaining unit.
The Commission had rejected "severance-decertification" petitions
long before that rule was adopted. In City of Seattle, Decision
2612 (PECB, 1987), where an employee sought to decertify only a
select group of employees from a larger bargaining unit, the
Commission wrote:
The distinction between "decertification" of an incumbent
exclusive bargaining representative and "severance" of a part
of the existing bargaining unit is well founded and clear.
Proceedings in the "decertification" category are characterized
by employees seeking to be rid of their present union, with the
result that they end up with no union representation. By
contrast, cases in the "severance" category involve a petition
of one organization seeking to carve out a separate bargaining
unit from a larger unit historically represented by the same or
another organization. In both types of cases, the Commission
must honor statutory directive that it consider the "history of
bargaining". RCW 41.56.060. A decertification petitioner does
not have the prerogative to fashion a new bargaining unit or
voting group, however. Rather, employees who seek to be rid of
their union must take the existing unit as they find it and
must move to decertify the context of the existing bargaining
unit. Accordingly, petitions which, as here, simultaneously
seek "severance" and "decertification" are precluded by
controlling precedent of the Public Employment Relations
Commission. See, City of Seattle, Decision 1229-A (PECB, 1982)
[Commission affirmed Executive Director's dismissal of
"severance-decertification" petition seeking to remove some,
but not all, of the employees from an existing bargaining unit
of City of Seattle employees represented by Plumbers Local
32];Valley General Hospital, Decision 1333 (PECB, 1982)
[Executive Director dismissed "severance-decertification"
petition]. The Commission's decisions on this subject are, in
turn, based on precedents of the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB). Campbell Soup Co., 11 NLRB 234 (1055) [cited by
Commission, with approval, as standing for the proposition that
severance principles may not be applied to obtain
decertification of part of an existing bargaining unit; Oakwood
Tool & Engineering Co., 122 NLRB 812 (1958); Associated General
Contractors of California, Inc., 209 NLRB 363 (1974).
A petition seeking a "severance-decertification" is void from the
outset, and must be dismissed as such.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The petition for investigation of a question concerning
representation filed in the above matter is DISMISSED.
Issued at Olympia, Washington, this 24th day of April, 2008.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
CATHLEEN CALLAHAN, Executive Director
This order will be the final order of the
agency unless a notice of appeal is filed
with the Commission under WAC 391-25-660.