University of Washington, Decision 8315 (PECB, 2003)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
In the matter of the petition of: )
)
GRADUATE STUDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION )
COALITION, UAW ) CASE 16288-E-02-2699
)
Involving certain employees of: ) DECISION 8315 - PECB
)
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON ) DIRECTION OF ELECTION
)
___________________________________)
Theiler Douglas Drachler and McKee, by Paul Drachler, Attorney
at Law, for the petitioner.
Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, by Judy Mims, Assistant
Attorney General, and Summit Law Group by Otto G. Klein III,
Attorney at Law, joined by Kristen D. Anger, Attorney at Law,
on the brief, for the employer.
On March 14, 2002, the Graduate Student Employee Action Coalition,
UAW (union) filed a petition for investigation of a question
concerning representation with the Public Employment Relations
Commission under Chapter 391-25 WAC, seeking certification as
exclusive bargaining representative of certain student/employees of
the University of Washington (employer). An investigation
conference was conducted on May 1 and 9, 2002, at the employer's
campus in Seattle, Washington. An investigation statement issued on
May 13, 2002, set forth issues for hearing, as follows:
a. The parties could not stipulate that a question concerning
representation exists because the employer reserved its
stipulation concerning the showing of interest. The
employer questions the sufficiency of the showing of
interest because the cards were, for the most part,
gathered prior to the effective date of the enabling
legislation.
b. The parties did not stipulate to the definition of an
appropriate bargaining unit. While both parties stated an
acceptance of a "one sixth of employment" standard to
determine regular part-time status, the employer wishes to
apply that test in a 40 hour per week model, and the
[union] wishes to use a 20 hour per week standard.
c. The parties could not agree on a way to define a
"continuing expectation of employment". The em-ployer
wants to analyze the working relationship using all four
academic quarters, while the [union] wants to use three
quarters ([Autumn], Winter and Spring) as a way to analyze
a regular work year.
d. The parties did not agree on a final disposition for
individuals serving as Research Associates. The [union]
believes that most "RA's" should be eligible for unit
inclusion, while the employer believes that most of the
RA's must be excluded under terms of the enabling
legislation.
e. The parties could not agree on how to deal with instances
where individuals held multiple employment positions,
particularly if some of those positions involved RA duties.
f. The parties could not stipulate to a final eligibility
list for the proposed bargaining unit.
Hearing Officer Kenneth J. Latsch conducted a formal hearing on 17
days between June and December of 2002, and the transcript of those
proceedings fills 2,645 pages.(1) The parties filed briefs on
February 18, 2003. The union filed a reply brief on March 3, 2003.
____________________
1 The hearing dates were: June 19, July 12, July 18, July 19,
July 25, August 1, September 5, September 6, September 18, September
19, September 20, October 17, October 21, October 29, October 31,
November 1, and December 4, 2002, constituting the longest hearing
process in the 28-year history of the Commission.
The Executive Director rules that: (1) the full-time standard for
the student/employees involved in this proceeding is 20 hours per
week for the normal academic year (autumn, winter and spring
quarters); (2) student/employees are eligible for inclusion in the
petitioned-for bargaining unit if they work in any combination of
covered positions for more than one-sixth of that full-time
standard; (3) research assistants and student/employees performing
similar duties and responsibilities under other titles are included
in the bargaining unit if their service obligations toward this
employer qualify them as regular part-time employees; (4) the
sufficiency of the showing of interest is not a proper subject for a
ruling; and (5) doubts as to the validity of the authorization cards
as actual evidence of representation warrant directing an election
in this case.
BACKGROUND
The employer is the largest of the institutions of higher education
operated by the state of Washington, with a main campus in Seattle
and branch campuses in Tacoma and Bothell, and a total enrollment of
about 40,000 students. It operates under the general policy
direction of a board of regents appointed by the Governor. That
board appoints a president who has overall responsibility for
day-to-day management of the institution, including financial
affairs, program administration, and personnel matters.(2) Acting
directly or through designees, the president has authority to
formulate and issue rules, regulations, and executive orders. A
provost report-ing to the president serves as the employer's chief
academic officer. An executive vice-president reporting to the
president serves on an executive team with the president and
provost. Additional vice-presidents and assistant vice-presidents
have responsibility for specific portions of the operation.
____________________
2 Analysis in this decision is limited to the employer's
personnel policies concerning the student/employees at issue in this proceeding.
At the time of hearing, a dean headed each of 17 colleges and
schools (hereafter: "sub-institutions") on the Seattle campus.(3)
The deans are responsible for academic affairs, as well as budgetary
leadership. There were about 150 departments, divisions, and
degree-granting programs within the subinstitutions,(4) and most of
the teaching/learning actually takes place in these departments,
divisions, and programs.
3 Most undergraduate degrees (at the "Bachelor of . . ." level)
are conferred through the College of Arts and Sciences, which is the
largest of the 17 subinstitutions. Other large subinstitutions are
the: College of Education, College of Engineering, College of Forest
Resources, School of Law, School of Medicine, School of Nursing,
College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences, School of Pharmacy, and
Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs.
4 There is no uniformity as to the number of departments or
programs per subinstitution: Several have multiple units; others
have few.
Each of the employer's departments, divisions, and programs has a
faculty attached to it. At the time of the hearing, the employer
had about 10,000 faculty members. The faculty has autonomy in some
academic matters, and makes decisions (or at least effective
recommendations) on some issues pertinent to this proceeding,
including graduate school admissions and personnel practices.
Graduate Student/Employees
The employer offers degrees the "master of . . ." and "doctor of . .
." level in about 90 programs and the employer normally has more
than 7,000 graduate students enrolled. The employer's Graduate
School administrative unit coordinates activities among many of the
departments offering graduate degrees, and the dean of the Graduate
School has a vice-provost title in recognition of the level of
academic responsibility associated with that position. The employer
has established some policies applicable to all graduate students,
and the graduate admissions office is responsible for assuring that
prospective graduate students meet the employer's criteria for
entrance. The departments, divisions, and programs can set their
own standards for admission to their particular fields of study, and
often supplement employer-wide policies with policies of their own.(5)
____________________
5 While they cannot conflict with institution-wide policies,
departmental policies can be much more detailed and can cover issues
not addressed in the institution-wide policies.
Competitiveness -
Some of the employer's graduate programs are nationally ranked and
the employer receives many more applications for graduate study than
are accepted, so that admission to its graduate programs is very
competitive. At the same time, competition between institutions of
higher education for the best students prompts this employer to
provide substantial financial assistance to attract desired students
for graduate study.
Prospective graduate students are often familiar with a specific
program or project on the employer's campus, and contact faculty
member(s) about the possibility of pursuing a course of study at the
institution. Some departments conduct weekend visits for
prospective students to come to the campus to meet with faculty
members. It is commonplace for faculty members to discuss
finan-cial terms with prospective students (subject to the student
being accepted through the graduate admissions office), and faculty
members may actively recruit applicants by indicating their ability
to provide financial support for research or study.
The financial packages offered to graduate students come in a
variety of forms: In some cases, the student is given funding
(hereafter: an "award") with little or no service expectancy
attached to it;(6) a financial package may be offered for the
prospective student's entire course of graduate study, or financial
terms may be set for a specific period of time.(7)
____________________
6 Some students are excluded from consideration in this case on
the basis that they are not employees of this employer in any sense.
Those include:
(1) Students who fund their own tuition and expenses while pursuing
a degree, and so have neither income from nor service obligations
toward this employer;
(2) Students whose tuition and expenses are funded by a fellowship
for a course of study and/or a specific area of research (most often
a merit-based award from an outside source such as the National
Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, or a private
foundation) secured through an application made to the funding
source prior to the student coming to the employer's institution, so
that enforcement of any terms or conditions is between the student
and the funding source; and
(3) Students who receive funding from the employer to pursue a
course of study with no service expectancy imposed by the employer
(hereafter an "award").
7 In such cases, the particular graduate program often finds
ways to provide the affected graduate student some renewal of,
extension of, or substitution for, the initial financial package.
Service Appointments -
In the many situations that are of interest in this proceeding, the
financial package offered to a graduate student includes a service
expectancy imposed by this employer for work as student/employee in
one or more of the following roles:
* Teaching assistant (TA) roles (including predoctoral
instructor, predoctoral lecturer, predoctoral teaching
assistant, predoctoral teaching associate I, predoctoral
teaching associate II, and student/employees with substantially
equivalent duties) generally support the teaching/learning
functions of faculty members. A TA might assist a faculty
member in the classroom, might lead a discussion section, or
might conduct a laboratory section.(8) In some courses, a TA
(usually a predoctoral instructor) may actually assume
responsibility for an entire course, or can take over for a
faculty member who is on a sabbatical or is otherwise away from
the university during the quarter when the course is to be
offered. The employer had 1,424 student/employees working in
TA roles in the autumn of 2001.
____________________
8 For example: As to undergraduate courses which may have 500
or more students, the faculty member usually lectures to the entire
class, while a TA leads a quiz section of 20-30 students where
details from the lectures are discussed and students are provided
with help in preparing for examinations; a TA working in such a
situation is not independently responsible for the course being
offered, and works closely with the faculty member to ensure that
certain subjects are covered in detail.
* Staff assistant (SA) roles (including predoctoral staff
assistant, predoctoral staff associate I, predoctoral staff
associate II, and student/employees with substantially
equivalent duties) generally complement teaching/learning and
research activities. An SA might serve as a student advisor,
might perform institutional research, or might perform related
work such as admissions. The employer had 190 student/
employees working in SA roles in the autumn of 2001.
* Research assistant (RA) roles (including predoctoral
researcher, predoctoral research assistant, predoctoral
research associate I, predoctoral research associate II, and
student/ employees with substantially equivalent duties)
generally support the research mission of the university. An
RA might assist a faculty member, might assist a member of the
employer's permanent research staff,(9) might perform specific
research assignments, or might perform independent research
under the general supervision of a faculty member. The
employer had 2,113 student/employees working in RA roles in the
autumn of 2001.
____________________
9 Notice is taken of University of Washington, Decision 7811
(PSRA, 2002), wherein another union was certified an exclusive
bargaining representative of a bargaining unit of about 444
full-time and regular part-time research technologists who are
classified employees under the State Civil Service Law, Chapter
41.06 RCW.
There is no single method or standard for these types of service
appointments. It is, however, the general practice that the tuition
obligations of graduate students with TA, SA, and RA appointments
will be funded in some part or in their entirety. Most of the
graduate students with TA, SA, and RA appointments also receive
monetary compensation for the work they perform.
Other Student/Employee Work Opportunities -
Some graduate students are offered work opportunities that appear to
be less formal than the TA, SA, and RA roles:
* Tutors either work for a particular department or for a study
center such as Student Athlete Academic Services,(10) to help
undergraduate students individually or in groups. Tutors
assist students in improving their performance in a particular
class. Tutors work varying hours, mostly less than 20 hours a
week.(11) Some tutors work more hours in the middle portions
of the quarters during the normal academic year, while others
are available throughout those quarters, depending on the
program and its expectations.
____________________
10 The study centers can employ as many as 100 tutors in a
quarter, and may also hire either undergraduate students or
non-students as tutors.
11 In many situations, tutors work on a very limited basis.
* Readers and Graders assist faculty members by reviewing and
grading the papers submitted by (mostly undergraduate)
students.(12) Readers and graders are typically paid on an
hourly basis. In some cases, graders keep office hours and
help students having problems in a particular course. Graders
are typically hired for an academic quarter at a time, but the
record reflects that their work time will be concentrated in
just a portion of the quarter. For the most part, graders work
approximately 10 hours a week, but may work as much as 15 hours
weekly.
____________________
12 The record indicates that undergraduate students may be hired
as readers and graders.
Both the service expectancies and compensation associated with these
roles are understood to be quite variable.
Undergraduate Student/Employees
Some student/employees are working toward a degree at the "bachelor
of . . ." level. A majority of the tutoring work is performed by
such undergraduates, and undergraduates may work in other student/
employee categories.
New Legislation
In its 2002 session, the Washington State Legislature passed
Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2540,(13) amending the Public
Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, Chapter 41.56 RCW, to extend
statutory collective bargaining rights (for the first time) to
student/employees working in specific classifications at the
University of Washington. That legislation became Chapter 34, Laws
of 2002, and its operative language is now codified as follows:
____________________
13 The term "substitute" connotes that amendments made in
committee were rolled into a substitute bill; the term "engrossed"
connotes that additional amendments were made on Second Reading.
RCW 41.56.203 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
ENROLLED IN ACADEMIC PROGRAMS SCOPE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
(1) In addition to the entities listed in RCW 41.56.020, this
chapter applies to the University of Washington with respect to
employees who are enrolled in an academic program and are in a
classification in (a) through (i) of this subsection on any
University of Washington campus. The employees in (a) through
(i) of this subsection constitute an appropriate bargaining unit:
(a) Predoctoral instructor;
(b) Predoctoral lecturer;
(c) Predoctoral teaching assistant;
(d) Predoctoral teaching associates I and II;
(e) Tutors, readers, and graders in all academic units and
tutoring centers;
(f) Predoctoral staff assistant;
(g) Predoctoral staff associates I and II;
(h) Except as provided in this subsection (1)(h),
predoctoral researcher, predoctoral research assistant, and
predoctoral research associates I and II. The employees that
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit under this subsection
(1) do not include predoctoral researchers, predoctoral
research assistants, and predoctoral research associates I and
II who are performing research primarily related to their
dissertation and who have incidental or no service expectations
placed upon them by the university; and
(i) All employees enrolled in an academic program whose
duties and responsibilities are substantially equivalent to
those employees in (a) through (h) of this subsection.
(2)(a) The scope of bargaining for employees at the
University of Washington under this section excludes:
(i) The ability to terminate the employment of any
individual if the individual is not meeting academic
requirements as determined by the University of Washington;
(ii) The amount of tuition or fees at the University of
Washington. However, tuition and fee remission and waiver is
within the scope of bargaining;
(iii) The academic calendar of the University of
Washington; and
(iv) The number of students to be admitted to a particular
class or class section at the University of Washington.
(b)(i) Except as provided in (b)(ii) of this subsection,
provisions of collective bargaining agreements relating to
compensation must not exceed the amount or percentage
established by the legislature in the appropriations act. If
any compensation provision is affected by subsequent
modification of the appropriations act by the legislature, both
parties must immediately enter into collective bargaining for
the sole purpose of arriving at a mutually agreed upon
replacement of the affected provision.
(ii) The University of Washington may provide additional
compensation to student employees covered by this section that
exceed that provided by the legislature.
That legislation contained an emergency clause, and so became
effective when the bill was signed by the Governor on March 14,
2002. The petition filed to initiate this proceeding described the
proposed bargaining unit in the following terms:
Employees who are enrolled in an academic program and are
currently in a classification (a) through (i) or who were
employed in the unit in the previous 12 months and who remain
available for work in the unit and have an expectation of
employment in the unit.
(a) Predoctoral Instructor;
(b) Predoctoral Lecturer;
(c) Predoctoral Teaching Assistant;
(d) Predoctoral Teaching Associates I and II;
(e) Tutors, Readers, and Graders in all academic units and
tutoring centers, including, but not limited to such
employees within the Student Assistant titles;
(f) Predoctoral Staff Assistant;
(g) Predoctoral Staff Associates I and II;
(h) Predoctoral Researcher, Predoctoral Reearch Assistant, and
Predoctoral Research Associates I and II;
(i) All employees enrolled in an academic program whose duties
and responsibilities are substantially equivalent to those
employees in (a) through (h), who are classified in these
or other titles.
[excluding] Predoctoral Researchers, Predoctoral Research
Assistants, and Predoctoral Research Associates I and II who
are performing research primarily related to their dissertation
and who have incidental or no service expectations placed upon
them by the University, and all other employees.
The union filed that petition with the Commission shortly (perhaps
minutes) after the Governor signed the new legislation into law.
DISCUSSION
The Complex Nature of the Institution
Part of the immense record made in this case consists of evidence
amply demonstrating the existence of numerous variances of policy
and practice within the employer institution, and among its
subinstitutions, departments, divisions, and programs. That
evidence is largely irrelevant in this case, however.
Commission precedents under Chapter 41.56 RCW have often repeated
the principle that the determination of appropriate bargaining units
is a function delegated by the Legislature to the Commission under
specific criteria set forth in RCW 41.56.060, as follows:
The commission, after hearing upon reasonable notice, shall
decide in each application for certification as an exclusive
bargaining representative, the unit appropriate for the purpose
of collective bargaining. In determining, modifying, or
combining the bargaining unit, the commission shall consider
the duties, skills, and working conditions of the public
employees; the history of collective bargaining by the public
employees and their bargaining representatives; the extent of
organization among the public employees; and the desire of the
public employees. . . .
(emphasis added). If those "community of interest" criteria were
applicable in this case, the voluminous record could provide room
for debate about whether multiple communities of interest should be
identified within the overall cadre of student/employees at the
institution. But that is NOT the situation at hand.
The Legislature has occupied the unit determination field in several
of the other statutes administered by the Commission:
* As to the faculty employees of this employer (and of the five
other state institutions of higher education conferring degrees
at and above the "bachelor of . . ." level), who have
collective bargaining rights under Chapter 41.76 RCW, that
statute does not contain community of interest criteria of the
type found in RCW 41.56.060, and the definition of bargaining
unit in RCW 41.76.005(11) effectively precludes any community
of interest debate.(14)
____________________
14 RCW 41.76.005(11) includes: "all faculty members of all
campuses of each of the colleges and universities. Only one
bargaining unit is allowable for faculty of each employer, and that
unit must contain all faculty members from all schools, colleges,
and campuses of the employer."
* As to classified employees of this employer (and of the other
state institutions of higher education and state general
government agencies), whose collective bargaining rights are in
transition from the State Civil Service Law, Chapter 41.06 RCW,
to a broader scope under the Personnel System Reform Act of
2002 (PSRA) and Chapter 41.80 RCW, the community of interest
criteria set forth in RCW 41.80.070(1) are limited by both:
Requiring separation of supervisors from non-supervisory
employees (RCW 41.80.070(1)(a)); and requiring
institution-by-institution bargaining units in higher education
(RCW 41.80.070(1)(b)).
* As to the academic faculties of community and technical
colleges (who bargain collectively under Chapter 28B.52 RCW),
language in RCW 28B.52.030 referring to "an election to
represent the academic employees within the . . . district"
precludes the possibility of having more than one bargaining
unit within a district, even though some of the districts have
two or more separate operations.(15)
____________________
15 Green River Community College, Decision 4491-A (CCOL, 1994).
Chapter 28B.52 RCW lacked community of interest criteria of the type
set forth in RCW 41.56.060 when it was first enacted as a
professional negotiations act in 1971, and the quoted language
survived through sub-stantial amendment of that chapter in 1987.
* As to teachers in the common schools (who bargain collectively
under Chapter 41.59 RCW), community of interest criteria
similar to those found in RCW 41.56.060 are set forth in the
first paragraph of RCW 41.59.080, but language in RCW
41.59.080(1) requiring that all non-supervisory educational
employees of employers be included in district-wide units
effectively precludes any community of interest debate.(16)
____________________
16 Chapter 28.72 RCW (later Chapter 28A.72 RCW) lacked community
of interest criteria of the type found in RCW 41.56.060 when it was
enacted as a professional negotiations act in 1965, instead
referring to an organization winning "an election to represent the .
. . employees within the . . . district".
Thus, it is not surprising that the Legislature has also occupied
the field with respect to unit determination for certain classes of
employees within Chapter 41.56 RCW:
* RCW 41.56.025 both makes Chapter 41.56 RCW applicable to
employers operating as education providers under Chapter
28A.193 RCW, and limits bargaining units to the employees
working as education providers to juveniles in adult
correctional facilities.
* RCW 41.56.026 makes Chapter 41.56 RCW applicable to individual
providers of home care services under Chapter 74.39A RCW, and
provisions in Chapter 74.39A RCW then negate the community of
interest criteria set forth in RCW 41.56.060 by requiring a
state-wide bargaining unit of individual providers.
* RCW 41.56.201 as enacted in 1993 created an option for state
institutions of higher education and unions representing their
classified employees to have their collective bargaining
relationship and obligations governed by Chapter 41.56 RCW, but
RCW 41.56.201(2)(a) required the Commission to recognize the
bargaining units in their current form, as certified by the
Washington Personnel Resources Board or its successor.(17)
____________________
17 The option established in RCW 41.56.201 ceased to be
available as of July 1, 2003. An ironic tidbit of history is that
the Commission became the successor to the WPRB under that section
from the effective date of certain PSRA provisions on June 13, 2002
through June 30, 2003, but it then had to apply the community of
interest criteria set forth in RCW 41.06.340 and 41.80.070, rather
than the community of interest criteria in RCW 41.56.060.
This employer and union were both active participants in the
lobbying that preceded the adoption of the statutory language under
which this case must be decided. Now that the bill they lobbied is
law, the intent of the proponents is irrelevant, and Chapter 34,
Laws of 2002, must be applied as written. An institution-wide
bargaining unit is REQUIRED by the language in RCW 41.56.203(1)
which states: "The employees in (a) through (i) of this subsection
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. . . ." (emphasis added).
To the extent these parties (or either of them) have belabored the
record with evidence of variance among the types of
student/employees, their wasted effort will not be rewarded with
detailed discussion of such facts and arguments in this decision.
The positions of the parties, additional facts, and legal analysis
are set forth below separately for issues or groups of issues that
are properly before the Commission in this case.
The "Regular Part-Time" Issues
Three of the issues framed in the investigation statement are
closely related, and are discussed together here: The second issue
framed (concerning the full-time base from which the test for
inclusion in the bargaining unit is to be applied), the third issue
framed (concerning the work year to which the test is to be
applied), and the fifth issue framed (concerning student/employees
who move between categories).
The Commission has codified a standard for determining whether an
individual is a "regular part-time" employee included in a
bargain-ing unit or a "casual" employee to be excluded from all
bargaining units. WAC 391-35-350 states:
(1) It shall be presumptively appropriate to include
regular part-time employees in the same bargaining unit with
full-time employees performing similar work, in order to avoid
a potential for conflicting work jurisdiction claims which
would otherwise exist in separate units. Employees who, during
the previous twelve months, have worked more than one-sixth of
the time normally worked by full-time employees, and who remain
available for work on the same basis, shall be presumed to be
regular part-time employees. For employees of school districts
and educational institutions, the term "time normally worked by
full-time employees" shall be based on the number of days in
the normal academic year.
(2) It shall be presumptively appropriate to exclude
casual and temporary employees from bargaining units.
(a) Casual employees who have not worked a sufficient
amount of time to qualify as regular part-time employees are
presumed to have had a series of separate and terminated
employment relationships, so that they lack an expectation of
continued employment and a community of interest with full-time
and regular part-time employees.
(b) Temporary employees who have not worked a sufficient
amount of time to qualify as regular part-time employees are
presumed to lack an expectation of continued employment and a
community of interest with full-time and regular part-time
employees.
(3) The presumptions set forth in this section shall be
subject to modification by adjudication.
(emphasis added). The parties do not contest the applicability of
the "one-sixth" threshold for regular part-time status set forth in
WAC 391-35-350. They do, however, disagree about how that test
should be applied in this case.
Positions of the Parties on Regular Part-Time -
The union maintains that student/employees in all categories listed
in the new legislation should be included in the bargaining unit if
they meet the one-sixth test. The union maintains that the base for
computing the full-time standard should be 20 hours per week for
three academic quarters (because the service expectancies of the
student/employees are 20 hours per week or less in that period) and
that work in any of the covered categories should be accumulated for
purposes of applying the one-sixth test.
The employer contends the computation should be based on a 40-hour
work week throughout the year, and that such a standard is a fair
way to determine whether a student/employee has a sufficient
relationship with the employer to be a member of the bargaining unit
to be created in this proceeding. The employer would also have a
"two consecutive quarters" requirement imposed and, at least through
presenting evidence at the hearing in this matter, it asked for
separate computation in each type of student/employee work.
Applicable Legal Principles -
The student/employees at issue in this proceeding are specifically
excluded from the coverage of Chapter 41.06 RCW.(18) The 40-hour
work week and 2080-hour work year (40/2080) standard applicable to
classified employees of this employer working under the State Civil
Service Law, Chapter 41.06 RCW, is thus not controlling here.
____________________
18 RCW 41.06.070(1)(l). The collective bargaining rights of the
student/employees at issue here are regulated exclusively by the
recent amendment to Chapter 41.56 RCW. It follows that a
recently-adopted rule, by which the Washington State Personnel
Resources Board (WPRB) established that a part-time employee of an
institution of higher education must work 350 hours in a one-year
period to have sufficient civil service status under Chapter 41.06
RCW to be eligible for collective bargaining rights under Chapter
41.80 RCW, is also inapplicable here.
WAC 391-35-350 was adopted in 2001, as the culmination of a number
of precedents developed in various employment settings:
King County, Decision 1675 (PECB, 1983), addressed the need to
evaluate employment settings individually. That decision included:
The fashioning of a test requires that the employment
relationship, and the expectancy of continued employment, be
looked at with a view sufficiently global to include the
perspective of the employer seeking to establish and maintain a
workforce as well as the perspective of an individual seeking
to make a living or supplement other income.
Clearly, there can be no "one size fits all" for employment
settings. The King County case presented a (relatively unusual)
situation in which the workforce being organized consisted entirely
of employees who worked less than a 40/2080 schedule.
In Columbia School District, Decision 1189-A (EDUC, 1982), the
Commission dealt with another workforce composed entirely of
employees working less than a 40/2080 schedule.(19) The Commission
determined regular part-time status on the basis of the work year
that applied to the affected employees. In Columbia, the "30 days
in one year" formulation of the one-sixth test conformed to the
educational program offered by those employers, as defined by the
autumn through spring academic year in use there.
____________________
19 The base year for the full-time teachers in the bargaining
units involved was 7 or 7-1/2 hours per day for the 180 days of the
normal academic year, thus amounting to between 1260 and 1350 hours
per year.
A similar result was reached in Community College District 12,
Decision 2374 (CCOL, 1986), although different terminology was used.
When the community college employment setting was examined, the
work year used to compute regular part-time status for an entire
bargaining unit working less than the 40/2080 schedule again
corresponded to the autumn through spring academic year. Because
the "days" methodology for computing work time in common schools was
unfamiliar in that employment setting, "full time equivalency" (FTE)
terminology familiar in community colleges was utilized.
Many bargaining units of school district classified employees
encompass multiple occupations. Under precedents such as Sedro
Woolley School District, Decision 1351-C (PECB, 1982) and Tumwater
School District, Decision 2043 (PECB, 1985), a multi-functional
employee (for example: an individual who substitutes as both a bus
driver and custodian, or as both an instructional assistant and
office-clerical employee) would be eligible for inclusion in the
bargaining unit upon completion of 30 days of work in any
combination of roles within the bargaining unit. Importantly, no
case is cited or found where the one-sixth test was applied
separately to occupations within the same bargaining unit, and
nothing in WAC 391-35-350 requires (or even provides basis for a
party to demand) an occupation-by-occupation computation.(20)
____________________
20 When faced with evidence of multi-functional employees in
Ephrata School District, Decision 4675-A (PECB, 1995), the
Commission rejected an occupation-by-occupation approach that would
have fragmented the workforce.
Application of Precedent on "Regular Part-Time" -
This record clearly reflects that the service appointments made to
student/employees are for 20-hour week or less. There is no
evidence that the employer ever offers student/employees positions
listed for more than 20 hours per week:
* The hours for TA appointments vary within a limited context.
The employer has very detailed rules regulating TA usage, and
departments must ensure that a TA receives appropriate training
and faculty supervision in the particular class assignment.
Faculty members must observe a TA at work, and some departments
use a two-week program designed to train each TA in the
particular subject matter. A TA generally has a defined work
week, and most often works 20 hours per week in the TA
assignment. The TA work hours may be closely monitored, and
the affected department will take steps to reduce the workload
of a TA who is working more than the prescribed 20-hour limit.
* The work hours of SA appointments are understood to be
generally similar to those of student/employees with TA
appointments.
* The RA appointments are generally stated in terms of 20 hours
per week. While the employer produced evidence showing that RA
appointments are more flexible than TA appointments, and even
sought to contradict the existence of a service expectancy in
regard to many RA appointments, the evidence certainly does not
support finding any general practice of paying an RA extra
compensation for work in excess of 20 hours, let alone paying
an RA at an overtime rate.(21)
____________________
21 To the extent that student/employees on RA appointments work
more than 20 hours per week, that amounts to "volunteer" work. An
employer cannot establish one standard for compensation and then ask
the Commission to apply a higher standard for regular part-time
status based on time worked in pursuit of a different motivation.
The performance of research in connection with the preparation of a
dissertation is discussed separately below.
* The work hours of readers, graders and tutors vary widely, with
the service expectancy most often less than 20 hours per week.
In light of the cited precedents tailoring the computation to the
particular employment setting being considered, application of a
"20 hours per week" standard is indicated in this case.
The employer divides the calendar year into quarters, and autumn
(September or October to December), winter (January to March), and
spring (March to June) quarters (each of approximately 11 weeks in
length) constitute its normal academic year. The majority of the
work opportunities for student/employees are during that normal
academic year. The employer operates a summer program, but the
course offerings are much smaller in scope than those made available
in the normal academic year,(22) and there are limited work
opportunities for student/employees during the summer quarter.(23)
____________________
22 Only about 35 percent of the student body (14,000 out of a
total of 40,000) were enrolled in the summer quarter.
23 Only about 35 percent of the TA workforce (500 out of a total
of 1,424) worked in the summer quarter).
In light of the cited precedents tailoring the computation to the
particular employment setting being considered, and particularly in
light of the reference to educational institutions in WAC
391-35-350, the use of a calendar year test is inapt for this
workforce.
This record clearly indicates that there is mobility for student/
employees among the types of work listed in RCW 41.56.203:
* The application process for TA appointments starts with
advertisements inviting interested graduate students to apply.
Practices concerning TA appointments vary from department to
department, and may be applied in a rather flexible manner.
Some TA appointments are made for a quarter at a time, but
departments that use a large number of TA appointments
frequently make them for the entire academic year. In some
departments, a student/employee may only hold a TA appointment
once or twice during his/her career as a graduate student.
* In some departments, a TA appointment may serve as a temporary
funding mechanism until an RA appointment begins. Thus, a
first year graduate student who hasn't settled on an area of
study may be given a TA appointment, but will be switched to an
RA appointment once a field of inquiry is established.
* Some student/employees may seek and accept a TA appointment to
supplement the income they are receiving from some other type
of student/employee role within the categories listed in RCW
41.56.203.(24)
____________________
24 The service expectancies associated with dual appoint-ments
may take the student/employee away from research work, and so may
even extend the overall time required for completion of his/her own
degree requirements, but that inherently tips the balance toward the
employment side of the student/employee relationship.
The statute itself requires that student/employees in all of the
listed categories be included in a single bargaining unit, so it
makes no sense to create artificial barriers within the class of
student/employees established by RCW 41.56.203.
In 2001, the employer paid more than $21 million for graduate
student tuition and stipends under appointments that arguably
imposed service obligations on student/employees. In the context of
that very substantial sum, compound application of the "regular
part-time" issues framed in this case would produce widely divergent
results:
* Applying the "20 hours per week" standard for service
appointments to the employer's normal academic year (20 hours
per week x 11 weeks per quarter x 3 academic quarters = 660
hours per annum) would result in inclusion of individual
student/employees in the bargaining unit upon their working
more than 110 hours in any combination of covered jobs in a
one-year period.
* Applying the "40 hours per week throughout the year" standard
such as that applicable to the employer's classified employees
(40 hours per week x 52 weeks in the calendar year = 2080 hours
per annum) would result in inclusion of individual
student/employees in the bargaining unit only if they work more
than 347 hours in a one-year period.
Compounding a 215 percent greater number of work hours required for
inclusion in the bargaining unit, the latter formula would make
bargaining unit membership far less attainable for student/
employees who shift between categories. In light of the language of
the applicable rule and the cited precedents tailoring the
computation to the particular employment setting being considered,
the threshold for this bargaining unit is set at 110 hours.
The RA Eligibility Issue
The conferral of an academic degree at the "doctor of . . ." level
is commonly conditioned upon completion and defense of a written
dissertation presenting a well-researched theory in the applicable
field of study. A substantial portion of the relevant evidence in
this record relates to the eligibility of student employees who are
working on their dissertation research.
Positions of the Parties on RA Eligibility -
The employer contends that a large number of individuals holding RA
appointments should be excluded from the bargaining unit, because
they are working on research that will become part of their own
dissertation. The employer maintains that RA appointments made to
support such graduate students should not be considered to be a form
of compensation for work performed, and that such individuals should
be categorized as students. The employer does acknowledge that an
RA who is working on a dissertation typically performs research that
is useful to the employer's research mission.
The union argues that all individuals with RA appointments should be
included in the bargaining unit, unless the service expectancies
placed upon them by the employer are insufficient to meet the
one-sixth test for regular part-time status. It maintains that a
large number of student/employees should not be excluded from
bargaining rights merely because of their parallel pursuit of their
own degree, that the research work performed by an RA is of value to
the employer even if it is also of learning value to the student/
employee, that the statute allows inclusion of any RA in the
bargaining unit, and that the employer's position would strand many
with RA appointments while others performing similar work would be
included in the unit by agreement of the parties.
Facts Concerning Research Funding -
The research component of the employer's operation has become a
major source of income for this employer, above and beyond enhancing
the employer's reputation among its peer institutions and/or being a
source of bragging rights for the employer.(25) There is variance
by department, but a number of common themes that run throughout the
graduate programs are of interest here.
____________________
25 In 2000, the employer ranked nationally among research
facilities as: second for receipt of grants for engin-eering and
science research ($444 million), and fifth for receipt of industry
research and development contracts ($57 million).
The record reflects that the employer received approximately $800
million in research grants in 2002: More than 70 percent of all
grant funds come from agencies of the federal government;(26) grants
totaling more than $39 million were received from state and local
government sources; more than $30 million was received from industry
groups sponsoring research; and more than $25 million was received
from private foundations sponsoring research. Research-related
revenues now make up about one-third of the employer's total
budget.(27)
____________________
26 More than $390 million was funded by the Department of Health
and Human Services; $72 million came from the National Science
Foundation; $45 million came from the Department of Defense; and
more than $20 million came from the Department of Energy.
27 The School of Medicine leads in the receipt of external
research grants, receiving about $372 million in grants in 2002.
Other major recipients in 2002 were the College of Engineering ($75
million), the College of Ocean and Fishery Science ($66 million),
the College of Arts and Sciences ($89 million), and the School of
Public Health and Community Medicine ($52 million).
Research grants are received only after a faculty member (who is
typically referred to as the "principal investigator" or "PI"),
makes a written proposal detailing a specific line of inquiry. The
research objectives are identified, usually with an explanation of
the benefit to be received from the research. Grant proposals
typically list a timeframe for the research, along with the
personnel that will be needed (including student/employees serving
in the RA role) for completion of the proposed research.(28)
____________________
28 Where renewal or extension of grant funding is being sought,
the PI must also demonstrate progress under the earlier grant.
Before a grant proposal is submitted to a potential funding source,
it must be submitted to a very detailed review process to evaluate
the substance and desirability of the proposal within the institution:
* The faculty member PI must submit the grant proposal to the
department chairperson, for review and approval.(29)
____________________
29 If more than one department is involved in the proposed
research, the chair of each affected department must approve the proposal.
* Proposals approved at the department level must be submitted to
the dean of the subinstitution, for further review and approval
at that level.(30)
____________________
30 If more than one subinstitution is involved in the proposed
research, the dean of each affected sub-institution must approve the proposal.
* Proposals receiving deaconal approval are forwarded to the
employer's Grant and Contract Services office, for
verifica-tion that they conform with the employer's policies,
as well as for review of equipment and space requirements.
The evidence about the grant approval process thus clearly
contradicts any suggestion that faculty members go their own way.
Licensing Revenues -
In the event that research performed on the employer's campus leads
to a new product or process, any patents that may be granted belong
to the employer. The employer receives revenues in the magnitude of
millions of dollars annually from licensing those ownership rights,
and ranked seventh among research facilities for receipt of
licensing revenues in 2000. Even where a private firm funds the
research, it will pay a fee to the employer for the use of any
resulting product or process.
The Uses of Grant Funds -
Out of about 7,500 proposals submitted by the employer's faculty in
2002, about 5,000 were funded. All grants and contracts are awarded
to the employer, rather than to the faculty member PI, and the
employer administers the grant funds:
* Research grants and contracts generally pay for the salaries of
faculty and staff members associated with that research.
Research funds paid for more than 6,300 FTE positions in a
recent year, including paying student/employee tuition and
stipends.
* Research grants and contracts generally pay for any supply and
equipment purchases associated with the particular research.
* The employer charges each grant for so-called "indirect costs"
amounting to more than 50 percent of the overall grant
funds.(31) The employer can use those revenues to supplement
other revenue sources, and the record reflects that the
employer has used funds retained from research grants for
instructional support, academic support, and library improvements.
____________________
31 Faculty members submitting grant proposals must budget for
indirect costs in their grant requests.
* The employer's policy is to return six percent of the retained
"indirect costs" to the department where a grant is received.
Those funds are used at the discretion of the departments.(32)
____________________
32 Such rebates are typically used by departments to fund
ongoing research projects.
Many student/employees are funded from research grants. Some
decisions concerning student/employees are directly influenced, or
even controlled, by the type of grant being sought.
The Predoctoral Student's Career -
During the first year of graduate studies in a program leading to a
degree at the "doctor of . . ." level, a student/employee will
likely take two or three classes per quarter. Some departments
place such student/employees under RA appointments and rotate them
through the laboratories of faculty members in the department,(33)
while other departments (English, Sociology, and Chemistry were
mentioned as examples) place their newer student/employees in the TA
role.
____________________
33 Rotations are used to allow graduate students a broad range
of educational opportunities, and to help them choose a particular
topic for intense research. Professor John Slattery explained in
the following terms:
The purpose of the rotation is really kind of twofold. It's to get
the student introduced and integrated into the department to learn
something about the work going on, not only in the laboratories that
they're rotating through, but also more generally through the
department by initiating contacts with more senior students. And
also to learn some techniques and skill that will be useful as they
actually initiate their dissertation research.
The student/employees do, however, perform some (closely directed)
research during their first year rotations.
During the first two years of graduate study, doctoral students are
encouraged to find a faculty "sponsor" who will help him/her focus
on a particular area of research to be used in the dissertation
process. This is also a time when faculty members who have funding
for specific research projects to match interests with graduate
students for work in that area. Some graduate students will have a
well-focused idea of a particular research they desire to
pursue,(34) while others may only have a general idea of their
research interests. In either event, the graduate student is
expected to work closely with faculty members to find a suitable
dissertation topic and a place to conduct the needed research. A
faculty committee is formed for each graduate student, typically
made up of faculty members in the same general field of research and
at least one representative from the Graduate School. The committee
may administer any required examination(s) and will be responsible
for determining whether the graduate student can continue in the
particular area of research.
____________________
34 In the case of graduate students on fellowships, the terms of
the fellowship may well define the limits of acceptable research possibilities.
At some time during the period of graduate study, a doctoral student
must take a "qualifying examination" and/or a "general examination"
to demonstrate readiness to focus on doctoral research. Preparation
for such examinations is very intense, and some student/employees do
not take classes during the quarter when the examination is to be
taken. After completing required courses and passing any required
examinations, most doctoral students focus on research that will be
used as the basis for their dissertation.
Although the terminology may be unfamiliar in the academic setting,
the record supports a conclusion that faculty sponsors are the
direct supervisors (in a labor relations sense) of the student/
employees working under an RA appointment. Such student/employees
and their faculty sponsors often spend a great deal of time refining
the proposed area of research, and faculty members make sure that
the student/employee has the appropriate level of training for the
research to be conducted. The record reflects that faculty members
often use their initial time with a graduate student to train the
student on particular research techniques that will be necessary for
the chosen project. A faculty sponsor who agrees to have a
graduate student work on a particular research project may thereby
become responsible for funding (out of research grants on which the
faculty members is named as the PI) any student/employee
appointment(s) given to that student. Faculty sponsors conduct
regular meetings with student/employees, to determine what progress
is being made on the research. In situations where the faculty
sponsor and the student/employee conclude that the research
direction they had planned has not turned out to be as fruitful or
as interesting as originally anticipated, and the faculty sponsor
actively assists the student/employee with modifying the research
plan or finding a new area of inquiry.(35)
____________________
35 After a year or two of actual experience, a student who
enters a research program with a particular set of interests may
change direction into an entirely different field of inquiry.
Research work performed prior to settling on a dissertation topic
can be recycled for use in a dissertation as the interests of
graduate students evolve.
In some departments, graduate students are encouraged (or even
expected) to get the results of their research published in some
academic journal or similar publication. Several graduate students
testified that publication was a major event in their dissertation
process, and enhanced the credibility of their dissertation project.
Apart from the possibility of the student/employee using published
material as part of his/her dissertation, the record supports an
inference that the publication of papers by persons associated with
it enhances the overall reputation of the employer institution.
Non-Dissertation RA Assignments -
While the majority of student/employees working in the RA role are
engaged in research associated with their effort to complete and
defend their own dissertation, the record establishes that the
employer also has a cadre of student/employees working under RA
appointments on institutional research or related work:(36)
____________________
36 Given the description of the various SA categories in this
record, a question arises as to whether the SA ter-minology might
be more appropriate for these assignments.
* In the Department of Nursing, a vast majority of RA
appointments do not have anything to do with a dissertation
topic. The department posts RA positions in the same manner as
TA appointments, and the RA position is defined in terms of a
specific subject for research.
* In the Sociology Department, several student/employees on RA
appointments were working on research unrelated to their own
dissertation. Such work may involve preparation of
biblio-graphies, proofreading, or analyzing data under the
direction of a faculty member.
* In the English Department, the student/employees on the few RA
appointments that exist for the most part perform a variety of
clerical functions. Those clerical duties relate to certain
publications issued by the department, and an RA might work
with the journal staff on a variety of editorial tasks such as
manuscript review and routine correspondence.
Thus, a student employee working on such an RA appointment is
typically working in the same general field as that being pursued in
their graduate studies, but is not working on the specific subject
matter being used for their own dissertation topic. Although such
RA assignments are usually for a fixed (and relatively brief)
period, they clearly impose a service expectancy on the
student/employee. For the most part, these assignments are given to
provide financial support while the student/employee pursues his/her
graduate degree.
Training Grants -
Graduate students working as "trainees" may be of interest in this
proceeding, because of the language in RCW 41.56.203(1)(i) that
extends collective bargaining rights to persons "whose duties and
responsibilities are substantially equivalent" to the RA role under
RCW 41.56.203(1)(h). Training grants are described in this record
as typically being more open-ended than the research grants, and as
intended to advance the general knowledge in a field (for example:
connecting the diverse subjects of molecular biology and statistical
reporting of biological research results within the general field of
biology). Students having an interest in that area of inquiry then
apply for a training grant. Unlike fellowships awarded outside of
the employer's institution, the employer's faculty members select
the persons who are to receive funding from a training grant. If
the funding is in the nature of an award without service
obligations, the union does not claim (and the law does not require)
that such individuals be included in the bargaining unit at issue in
this proceeding. On the other hand, if the faculty member
imposes/enforces a service obligation on a training grant recipient
for duties and responsibilities similar to those of an RA, a
student/employee who meets the test for regular part-time status
must be included in the bargaining unit involved here.
Analysis of RA Eligibility Issue -
The parties devoted a substantial portion of the hearing to
presenting evidence about RA appointments, with the employer
maintaining that any RA working on their own dissertation should be
excluded from the proposed bargaining unit no matter how many hours
they work. Contradicting the "student versus employee" distinction
which the employer would have drawn, the evidence in this record
supports conclusions that: (1) the employer's research programs have
become a huge revenue source for the institution; and (2)
student/employees on RA appointments constitute a substantial
portion of the workforce used by the employer to both attract and
fulfill the requirements of research grants.
Any party that proposes exclusion of an entire class of persons from
statutory bargaining rights bears a heavy burden. Under the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in Roza
Irrigation District v. State, 80 Wn.2d 633 (1972) and Zylstra v.
Piva, 85 Wn.2d 743 (1975), the provisions of Chapter 41.56 RCW are
to be construed liberally, and are to be applied in as many public
employment settings as possible. In Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle (METRO) v. Department of Labor and Industries, 88 Wn.2d 925
(1977), the Supreme Court rejected a line of precedents by which the
Commission's predecessor administrative agency had sought to invent
a class of "managerial-type supervisors" excluded from the coverage
of Chapter 41.56 RCW. In IAFF, Local 469 v. City of Yakima, 91
Wn.2d 101 (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that exclusions from
Chapter 41.56 RCW are to be construed narrowly, and that the party
proposing such exclusion has the burden of proving that exclusion is
necessary. In Rose v. Erickson, 106 Wn.2d 420 (1986), the Supreme
Court ruled that Chapter 41.56 RCW prevails over conflicting
statutes. The Commission's precedents similarly impose a high
burden on a party seeking an exclusion of either individuals or an
entire class of individuals from bargaining rights. City of
Seattle, Decision 689-A (PECB, 1979).
The Executive Director rejects the employer's attempt to
characterize the union's arguments as a "source of funds" inquiry
inapt to a unit determination issue while itself claiming there is
no employment relationship. In this case:
* From a very practical perspective, grant proposals submitted by
faculty members (in the name of the employer and with the
approval of senior employer officials) fulfill a role in the
marketplace that is comparable to advertising by a private
enterprise offering services to a client base. Grants don't
just happen. This employer exerts substantial control over the
solicitation of research business.
* Beyond simply receiving and paying out grant funds, the
employer takes a substantial "cut" from all grant funds. That
fact provides basis for an inference that student/employees
with service expectancies are an integral part of a system that
generates funds used by the employer to supplement its other
sources of revenue. Even if the employer does not admit to
making a profit on the indirect costs retained from research
grants, external funding of the tuition obligations of doctoral
students will, at a minimum, put funds into the employer's
coffers that would not come in if the graduate student did not
matriculate or had to drop out of school because of financial
distress.
* Beyond the short-term interests associated with administering
grant funds and using retained funds to supplement other
revenue sources, this record establishes that the employer has
long-term interests associated with the licensing rights that
grow out of the research performed on its campus. That
"licensing revenue" income stream is built on research
performed by persons on RA appointments at any stage of their
graduate studies.
This record does not support exclusion of there being an employment
relationship of an economic nature, exchanging remuneration for work
performed.
Regardless of the differing views of these parties as to their
intentions when RCW 41.56.203 was being drafted and considered in
the Legislature, the ultimate focus in this case must be on the
actual language of the adopted statute. The employer's arguments
would ignore or negate operative words of the applicable statute
that are clear and unambiguous. RCW 41.56.203(1)(h) only excludes
student/employees on RA appointments from the bargaining unit if
they meet a two-part test:
1. The individual must be "performing research primarily related
to their dissertation"; AND
2. The individual must "have incidental or no service expectations
placed upon them by the university."
The employer's focus throughout this proceeding has been erroneously
limited to the first of those criteria. The fact of being on the
so-called "dissertation track" is NOT sufficient to make a decision
about eligibility for inclusion in the bargaining unit. It is
ultimately the service expectancy imposed by the employer that
qualifies (or the lack of a service expectancy that disqualifies) an
RA from eligibility for inclusion in the bargaining unit involved in
this case.
The record indicates that most graduate students spend many hours on
their research, often including work on weekends and staying late
into the night. The employer routinely uses "20 hours per week"
terminology that connotes a service expectancy. Even if the
specific work hours of student/employees on RA appointments are not
tracked, many of them have a service expectancy for work that
fulfills a research grant on which the faculty sponsor is the PI.
If the faculty sponsor (supervisor) expects an RA to work on such
research, the employer is held accountable for the actions of its
agent.
A question arises here as to the meaning of the term "incidental" as
used in RCW 41.56.203(h). Although that term is seemingly more
descriptive than the inherently-ambiguous "limited" used in an early
version of the bill that became RCW 41.56.203, no definition of
"incidental" is set forth within the new legislation. Diction-aries
include terms such as "unpredictable" or "minor" or "casual" in
their definitions of the term.(37) Inasmuch as WAC 391-35-356 was
already in effect when the new legislation was being considered by
the Legislature in 2002, the Executive Director concludes that
"incidental" as used in the statute should be interpreted in harmony
with "casual" as used in the rule.(38) Thus, an RA whose service
expectancy in all covered categories during preparation of their
dissertation is for 130 or less hours of work per year is both
excluded from the bargaining unit under the "incidental" test in RCW
41.56.203(1)(h) and as a casual employee under WAC 391-35-350; an RA
whose service expectancy in all covered categories during
preparation of their dissertation exceeds 130 hours per year is both
included in the bargaining unit under 41.56.203(1)(h) and is a
regular part-time employee under WAC 391-35-350.
____________________
37 See, for example, Webster's II New Riverside University
Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1994.
38 In Green River Community College v. Higher Education
Personnel Board, 95 Wn.2d 108 (1980), the Supreme Court of the State
of Washington ruled that the Legislature could be presumed to have
known of the administrative rule being challenged in that case.
The employer argues in its brief that each of its departments has a
high degree of autonomy in deciding what research is to be pursued
and how the research is to be carried out, but that is not a basis
for ignoring the language of the applicable statute. Moreover, the
employer becomes actively involved in the final decisions before
applications for research funding are actually submitted to outside
funding sources, and then takes a very substantial portion of the
proceeds of any research grant that is received. The Legislature
has made the University of Washington the employer in this case, and
it cannot escape that responsibility by hiding behind its own
subinstitutions, departments and/or programs. If the employer must
centralize some authority and decision-making to fulfill the
responsibilities that the Legis-lature has placed upon the
institution as a whole, so be it. The employer's too-narrow focus
on research being related to a dissertation does not reflect how
work is accomplished in its departments and programs. The union has
provided persuasive evidence that student/employees on RA
appointments often work side-by-side on research work, without
distinction as to whether the work is or may be related to a
dissertation, so that it would be impossible for an outside observer
to tell whether an RA is working on a dissertation or on unrelated
research. Moreover, the employer's argument in this case would
negate the balanced analysis of employment settings called for in
King County, Decision 1675 (PECB, 1983), by completely excluding or
ignoring the perspective of student/employees seeking to make a
living while pursuing a graduate degree.
The record demonstrates that the great majority of the student/
employees on RA appointments do, in fact, have service expectancies
imposed upon them by the employer (or by faculty members who are
agents of the employer for this purpose) while they are working on
their dissertations. While gaining a graduate degree is a real
benefit to the student, those service expectancies fulfill research
grants that bring in a great deal of money to the employer. The
Legislature has decided that student/employees whose work appears to
make money for the employer should be allowed to bargain
collectively, and that legislative policy will be implemented here.
The Showing of Interest and Method of Determination
The union filed the petition to initiate this proceeding shortly
after the Governor signed the new legislation into law. The union
does not dispute that the authorization cards it filed as the
showing of interest in support of its petition were signed prior to
the effective date of the new law. Even without that union
acknowledgment, the circumstances would support an inference to the
same effect: This petition was filed in Olympia, within an hour or
two after the Governor took action (also in Olympia) to sign the
enabling statute, so there would have insufficient time between
those two events for the union to get fresh signatures from
student/employees (who mostly work in Seattle).
Positions of the Parties on Showing of Interest -
The employer asks that the union's showing of interest be rejected
in its entirety. The employer maintains that authorization cards
that predate the statute allowing collective bargaining should not
be counted for any purpose, because they were gathered outside a
statutory framework.
The union contends that the authorization cards it gathered prior to
the effective date of the enabling legislation demonstrate the
desire of student/employees to implement collective bargaining
rights, that nothing prohibited the union from using authorization
cards obtained in anticipation of the new legislation, and that the
showing of interest submitted with the petition should be considered
sufficient.
Analysis on Showing of Interest -
Applicable labor law principles, the Commission's rule, judicial
precedent, and the Administrative Procedure Act all require
rejection of the employer's attempt to litigate the sufficiency of
the showing of interest filed in support of this petition:
* The "showing of interest" process contained in Chapter 41.56
RCW is a loose paraphrase of practices under the National Labor
Relations Act, where the showing of interest is a rudimentary
preliminary step that largely serves to protect taxpayers from
the expense of processing cases where there is little chance of
success, authorization documents signed by bargaining unit
employees are protected from disclosure, the sufficiency of a
showing of interest is determined by the National Labor
Relations Board ex parte, and a showing of interest cannot be
litigated at any hearing;
* The Washington State Court of Appeals protected the
confidentiality of, and embraced the ex parte assessment of,
showings of interest in King County Public Hospital District 2
(Evergreen General Hospital) v. PERC, 24 Wn. App. 64 (Division
I, 1977), where it firmly rejected the demands of an
inquisitive employer for intrusion into the showing of interest
process;
* WAC 391-25-110 expressly protects the confidentiality of
showings of interest;(39) and
____________________
39 The current rule was first adopted in 1981, but Commission
rules protecting the confidentiality of showings of interest date
back to the onset of agency operations in 1976. As last amended in
2001, it now provides:
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE--SHOWING OF INTEREST CONFIDENTIAL. (1) A
petition filed by employees or an employee organization shall be
accompanied by a showing of interest indicating that the petitioner
has the support of thirty percent or more of the employees in the
bargaining unit which the petitioner claims to be appropriate. The
showing of interest shall be furnished under the same timeliness
standards applicable to the petition, and shall consist of original
or legible copies of individual authorization cards or letters
signed and dated by employees in the bargaining unit claimed appropriate.
(2) The agency shall not disclose the identities of employees whose
authorization cards or letters are furnished to the agency in
proceedings under this chapter.
(a) A petitioner or intervenor shall not serve its showing of
interest on any other party to the proceeding.
(b) The question of whether a showing of interest requirement for a
petition or for intervention has been satisfied is a matter for
administrative determination by the agency and may not be litigated
at any hearing.
(c) In order to preserve the confidentiality of the showing of
interest and the right of employees freely to express their views on
the selection of a bargaining representative, the agency shall not
honor any attempt to withdraw any authorization submitted for
purposes of this section.
* The Legislature expressly excluded the showing of interest
process from the definition of "agency action" under the state
Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW, at RCW
34.05.010(3)(b),(40) and so has inherently excluded the showing
of interest process from the "adjudicative proceedings" process
defined in RCW 34.05.010(1) and regulated in RCW 34.05.410
through .494.
____________________
40 That statute includes, "Agency action does not include an
agency decision regarding . . . (b) determinations as to the
sufficiency of a showing of interest filed in support of a
representation petition . . . under a collective bargaining law . .
. .
The employer's arguments about the sufficiency of the showing of
interest could properly have been excluded from the hearing process,
and certainly cannot be fully addressed here.(41)
____________________
41 The one employer concern the Executive Director is willing to
address here concerns whether stale cards were used. An amendment
to WAC 391-25-110 in 2001 repealed a 90-day limit on the shelf life
of cards, after a focus group discussion pointed out that the NLRB
precludes the re-use of cards left over from a previously-abandoned
organizing drive. Against that background, there is mention in this
record of a previous representation petition filed by the union that
was dismissed in University of Washington, Decision 7071 (PRIV,
2000). It suffices to say here that the union did not attempt to
use any authorization cards it had filed in connection with the
earlier proceeding as part of the showing of interest for this proceeding.
An issue that does need to be addressed in this decision is the
"method of determining question concerning representation" issue
that inherently arises in any representation proceeding under
Chapter 41.56 RCW, where only one union is seeking certification as
exclusive bargaining representative of unrepresented employees.(42)
Inasmuch as there was no collective bargaining statute in effect
covering the student/employees when they signed authorization cards,
the Executive Director concludes there is basis for concern that
those authorizations were given in the abstract. The number-ing of
the bill evidences that there were amendments during the legislative
process, so the student/employees could not have known what a
statute might eventually contain. Such authorizations should not be
used as actual evidence of representation.(43) An election will be
conducted to determine the question concerning representation in
this proceeding.
____________________
42 RCW 41.56.060 authorizes both secret ballot elections (which
are implemented by WAC 391-25-420, -430, -470, and -490) and
cross-checks (which are implemented by WAC 391-25-391 and -410).
43 As with signatures on an initiative or referendum petition,
the act of signing an authorization card does not obligate an
employee to continue their support for the union thereafter. A
cross-check under WAC 391-25-410 uses authorization cards for a very
different purpose, and employees are entitled to withdraw their
cards from use for that purpose.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The University of Washington is an institution of higher
education operated by the state of Washington, and is a "public
employer" within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(1).
2. The Graduate Student Employee Action Coalition, UAW, a
"bargaining representative" within the meaning of RCW
41.56.030(3), has filed a timely and properly supported
petition seeking certification as exclusive bargaining
representative of various student/employees of the employer.
3. The employer operates under the general policy direction of a
board of regents. Daily management of the institution,
including academic, financial, and personnel affairs, are
under the direction of a president who is selected by and
reports to that board. The president (or his/her designee) has
authority to formulate, prescribe and issue rules, regulations
and executive orders. A provost, an executive vice-president,
and a number of vice-presidents, assistant vice-presidents, and
deans are responsible for day-to-day administrative matters.
The employer's main campus is located in Seattle, Washington.
It maintains branch campuses in Bothell and Tacoma.
4. At the time of the hearing in this proceeding, the employer
operated 17 colleges and schools on its Seattle campus, each
under the direction of a dean with responsibility for both
academic and budgetary matters. Those subinstitutions have
wide latitude in regard to the establishment of departments or
programs, and approximately 150 departments and degree-granting
programs currently exist. Some interdisciplinary degrees are
granted, where studies cross departmental or program lines.
Each department or degree-granting program has a faculty
attached to it.
5. Faculty members have the primary responsibility for providing
instruction to the students of the institution. The faculty
has a degree of autonomy in academic/educational decisions, and
make some decisions or recommendations on personnel issues and
admission of students for study at the institution.
6. The institution has two main goals: A teaching/learning
function is implemented in traditional classrooms, in
laboratories, and in other settings designed to educate
students in a variety of academic disciplines; a research
function is implemented by faculty members soliciting grants
from funding sources outside of the institution, and then
overseeing the research funded by such grants.
7. The employer has employees in several categories that are not
at issue in this proceeding, including: (a) about 10,000
faculty members who have (but up to this time have not
exercised) collective bargaining rights under Chapter 41.76
RCW; (b) a number of classified employees who presently have
civil service rights and limited collective bargaining rights
under Chapter 41.06 RCW, and will have expanded collective
bargaining rights under Chapter 41.80 RCW as of July 1, 2004;
(c) a number of employees in bargaining units that have
exercised the option provided for in RCW 41.56.201, who
presently have collective bargaining rights under Chapter 41.56
RCW, and will have collective bargaining rights under Chapter
41.80 RCW; (d) a number of printing craft employees, who have
collective bargaining rights under Chapter 41.56 RCW; and (e) a
number of employees who are exempt from the coverage of the
State Civil Service Law, Chapter 41.06 RCW, and have no
collective bargaining rights.
8. The student/employees at issue in this proceeding are excluded
from the coverage of the State Civil Service Law, Chapter 41.06
RCW, and primarily work in teaching assistant (TA), staff
assistant (SA), or research assistant (RA) roles, or as
readers, graders, or tutors, or perform similar duties, while
pursuing their own academic degrees as students enrolled in
educational programs offered by the employer.
9. The employer offers graduate degrees in more than 90 academic
programs, and there are normally about 7,000 graduate students
enrolled at the institution. The majority of graduate degrees
are at the "master of . . ." or "doctor of . . ." level.
10. The employer's Graduate School administrative unit coordinates
activities among the departments offering graduate degrees, and
administers admissions standards to ensure that potential
graduate students meet specific criteria for entrance. In
recognition of the high level of administrative and academic
responsibilities associated with the position, the dean of the
graduate school is also titled as vice-provost of the
institution as a whole.
11. The employer has established certain policies that apply to all
graduate appointments. The various departments can set their
own standards for admission to their particular fields of
study, and often supplement employer-wide policies with details
and specific policies of their own, but departmental policies
cannot conflict with institution-wide policies.
12. Students who come to the institution with fellowship funding
from a source outside of the institution, and who are not
subject to any service expectancy imposed and enforced by this
employer, lack an employment relationship with this employer
and are excluded from consideration in this case.
13. Students who pay their own tuition and expenses, and are not
subject to any service expectancy imposed by the employer, lack
an employment relationship with this employer and are excluded
from consideration in this case.
14. Strong competition among institutions of higher education for
graduate students in some fields of study prompts the employer
to provide substantial financial assistance to attract quality
applicants. During initial contacts with potential graduate
students, faculty members may discuss their ability to provide
financial support for the potential applicant to do research in
a particular area of endeavor. Some departments conduct
weekend visits for potential students to come to the Seattle
campus for meetings with specific faculty members. In some
cases, the financial package offered to a prospective student
covers the entire period of the student's graduate studies; in
other cases, the financial assistance is for a specific period
of time shorter than the expected period of graduate study,
subject to the program finding other financial assistance for
the affected graduate student at a later time.
15. Graduate students who are awarded financial assistance by or
through the employer without being subjected to any service
expectancy imposed by this employer lack an employment
relationship with this employer and are excluded from
consideration in this case.
16. Any student enrolled in the employer's institution who is
subjected to a service expectancy imposed by this employer in
any of the employment categories listed in RCW 41.56.203(1) as
a condition of receiving financial assistance from this
employer (including monetary compensation, waiver of tuition
and/or fee obligations, or any other form of remuneration for
work performed), is under consideration in this proceeding as a
student/employee.
17. It is generally accepted practice that the tuition obligations
of student/employees will be funded as part of a financial
assistance package offered by the employer, and most of the
time the student/employee pays no tuition. Many of those
student/employees also receive monetary compensation for work
performed in the respective departments.
18. Student/employees in the teaching assistant (TA) role
(in-cluding the predoctoral instructor, predoctoral lecturer,
predoctoral teaching assistant, predoctoral teaching associate
I, and predoctoral teaching associate II types listed in RCW
41.56.203(1)(a) through (d)), generally teach classes, lead
discussion sections, oversee laboratory sections, serve as
classroom assistants to faculty members, and/or provide
supervised teaching. In the autumn quarter of 2001, the
employer had about 1,424 student/employees working in TA roles.
19. Student/employees in tutor, reader, and grader roles as listed
in RCW 41.56.203(1)(e), assist individual students and/or work
in study centers, and assist faculty members. Undergraduate
students and graduate students are employed in such roles,
along with persons who are not enrolled as students in the
institution. Any student/employees working in these roles are
paid on an hourly basis.
20. Student/employees in staff assistant (SA) roles (including the
predoctoral staff assistant, predoctoral staff associate I,
and predoctoral staff associate II types listed in RCW
41.56.203(1)(f) and (g)) generally complement teaching and
research activities, by serving as student advisors, doing
institutional research, and/or doing related work such as
admissions. In the autumn quarter of 2001, the employer had
about 190 student/employees working in these roles.
21. Student/employees in research assistant (RA) roles (including
the predoctoral researcher, predoctoral research assistant,
predoctoral research associate I, and predoctoral research II
types listed in RCW 41.56.203(1)(h)) generally engage in
research projects under the direction of faculty members
(including assisting faculty member or other research staff
members on specific assignments) or perform independent
research under the supervision of a faculty member. In the
autumn quarter of 2001, the employer had about 2,113
student/employees working under these titles.
22. Terms are not used consistently throughout the institution
operated by the employer, and titles other than those described
in paragraphs 18 through 21 of these findings of fact may be
used for student/employees assigned to perform similar duties
within the meaning of RCW 41.56.203(1)(i).
23. The common practice is that the service expectancy imposed by
the employer on a student/employee is for 20 hours per week or
less. There is no single method of setting service
appoint-ments, and some are annual appointments while others
are only set for that quarter. The work hours of some student/
employees working under TA appointments are closely monitored,
and the general practice is that student/employees on TA
appointments are not encouraged or expected to work more than
20 hours per week. The work hours of student/employees working
under RA appointments are not closely monitored, and some
student/employees working under RA appointments are encouraged
to work more than 20 hours per week without additional
compensation from the employer.
24. The employer divides the calendar year into four quarters for
purposes of its academic calendar. The employer's programs are
fully operational only during its normal academic year
consisting of the autumn, winter and spring quarters, covering
the months of September/October to June. Most student/
employee appointments, including the vast majority of TA
appointments, are limited to the normal academic year. The
employer operates a summer program, but only limited course
offerings and limited TA work opportunities exist during the
summer quarter.
25. Student/employees (and particularly graduate students) may move
from one role to another while enrolled at the institution,
such as serving as an RA in one academic quarter and as a TA in
the next academic quarter. This varies from time to time,
depending on the particular course of study and funding
involved, and depending on the policies and/or initiatives of
the various departments.
26. The record establishes there are at least some instances where
a student/employee working under one of the types of
appoint-ment described in paragraphs 18 through 22 of these
findings of fact seeks and accepts work in another of those
types to supplement his/her income. Such dual employment may
reduce or delay the progress of the student/employee toward
their own academic degree, and so may prolong the employment
relationship between the student/employee and this employer.
27. Research funding is a major source of income for the
university, amounting to $800 million in 2002. By 2000, the
employer was ranked second among all research facilities in the
nation in regard to the receipt of research grants for
engineering and science ($444 million), and fifth in regard to
the receipt of industry research and development contracts ($57
million). At the time of hearing, research grants made up
one-third of the employer's total budget.
28. The employer actively solicits research grants, which are
received in response to grant proposals submitted by faculty
members. All such grant proposals are subject to detailed
review by the employer as to the substance and desirability of
the proposed research, including: Submission by the faculty
member serving as the principal investigator to the
chair-person(s) of the department(s) involved for approval;
sub-mission of approved grant applications to the dean(s) of
the subinstitution(s) involved for approval; and submission to
the employer's Grant and Contract Services office for
verification that the proposal both conforms to the employer's
policies and procedures and any equipment and space
requirements needed for the research. In 2002, more than 7,500
grant proposals were submitted, of which more than 5,000 were
funded.
29. The employer takes a substantial portion of all grant funds
received (usually in excess of 50 percent of the total grant
funds) as a charge for "indirect" costs, and faculty members
must budget for those indirect costs in their grant proposals.
The employer can spend such retained funds to supplement other
revenue sources and/or to pay expenses in budget categories
unrelated to the research funded by the grant. The employer
has used such funds for instructional support, academic
support, and library improvements. The employer returns a
portion of the retained funds to the departments in which the
research occurs, and the departments are able to use those
funds for expenditures not limited to the research funded by
the grant.
30. The employer retains ownership rights as to any products or
processes developed through research conducted on its campus,
and it receives income from the licensing of those ownership
rights. In 2000, it ranked seventh in the nation among
research facilities in regard to the receipt of licensing
revenue. The employer can spend such funds to supplement other
revenue sources and/or to pay expenses in budget categories
unrelated to the research funded by the original grant.
31. Research grants paid for more than 6,300 full-time equivalent
(FTE) positions in the employer's overall workforce in 2001.
Of that, the employer paid more than $21 million to graduate
students and another $18 million for fellowships and trainee
stipends. Research grants are also used to pay the tuition of
graduate students, fellows, and trainees performing research.
32. Grant proposals typically list the personnel necessary for
completion of the proposed research, including student/
employees working under RA appointments. Such student/
employees constitute a substantial and ongoing workforce used
by the employer to fulfill the obligations of research grants.
33. In some departments, new student/employees are required to
rotate among working for several faculty members in the
department. Although learning basic laboratory techniques and
surveying a broad range of educational opportunities are among
the educational purposes of such rotations, those student/
employees are subject to a service expectancy imposed by the
employer and they actually perform some research work during
that rotation process. Graduate students working toward a
doctoral degree are expected to find a faculty sponsor within
their first year or two of graduate study, and that is a time
when faculty members who have grants for specific research
projects seek to match interests with graduate students to
conduct that research.
34. In addition to the direct supervision provided by the faculty
sponsor, a faculty committee formed concerning each doctoral
student (including the faculty sponsor and at least one
representative from the Graduate School) supervises the
student's general field of research, administers any required
examinations, is responsible for determining whether the
doctoral student can continue in the particular area of
research, and participates in the student's defense of his/her
dissertation.
35. After completing required course work and passing any required
examination(s), doctoral students generally work under their
faculty sponsor with a focus on the particular area of research
that will be used as the basis for the preparation and defense
of their dissertation. The faculty sponsor and the graduate
student spend substantial time refining the proposed area of
research, and the faculty sponsor may be responsible for
obtaining funding for the student, including any
student/employee position, through grants on which the faculty
sponsor is the principal investigator.
36. The interests and direction of graduate students often evolve,
so that a student who embarks upon a particular set of
interests may change direction after a time into an entirely
different field of inquiry. Research done by a student/
employee under service expectations imposed by the employer
prior to settling on a dissertation topic may nevertheless be
used by the graduate student as part of a dissertation.
37. Many doctoral students working under RA appointments spend
more than 20 hours per week on research which both fulfills the
obligations of a research grant and may be or become part of a
dissertation being prepared by the student/employee. The
evidence supports an inference that faculty sponsors generally
impose and enforce at least the 20 hours per week service
expectancy to fulfill their obligations under research grants
in which they are named as principal investigator. Faculty
sponsors conduct regular meetings with the doctoral student, to
determine what progress is being made on the research.
38. Training grants are used to support some research under the
direction of faculty members designated as the principal
investigators for such grants. Funds from training grants may
be awarded to graduate students without a service expectancy,
or may be provided as part of a financial package which
includes a service expectancy imposed by the employer.
39. Some RA appointments are for research or related work in the
same general field of study that is being pursued by a doctoral
student for his/her own dissertation, but is not directly
related to the specific subject matter that is being used as a
dissertation topic by the student/employee. Such RA
appointments are typically for a limited duration or for a
limited project. Such RA appointments are given to provide an
opportunity for the student to earn income while he/she pursues
research related to their dissertation topic.
40. Even when involved primarily in research related to their own
dissertation topic, student/employees on RA appointments
perform work that is of value to the employer, and ultimately
produces revenue for the employer, while producing income for
the student/employees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in
this matter under Chapter 41.56 RCW and Chapter 391-25 WAC.
2. The bargaining unit sought by the petitioner in this
proceeding, consisting of:
All regular part-time student/employees enrolled in an
academic program at the University of Washington and
working in one or any combination of the following
classifications: predoctoral instructor; predoctoral
lecturer; predoctoral teaching assis-tant; predoctoral
teaching associate I; predoctoral teaching associate II;
tutor, reader, or grader in all academic units and
tutoring centers; predoctoral staff assistant;
predoctoral staff as-sociate I; predoctoral staff
associate II; pre-doctoral researcher; predoctoral
research assistant; predoctoral research associate I;
predoctoral research associate II; and any other student
employees whose duties and responsibilities are
substantially equivalent to those employees, who remain
eligible for work in any or all of those types; excluding:
students who have no service expectancy imposed upon them
by the employer, casual employees, and all other employees
of the employer.
is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining under RCW 41.56.203.
3. The dispute in this proceeding concerning the eligibility of
student/employees on various research assistant and training
appointments is controlled by the language of RCW 41.56.203, so
that decisions made by other agencies under other statutes are
inapplicable as precedent in this proceeding.
4. Student/employees in any combination of the types listed in
paragraph 2 of these conclusions of law who have service
expectancies imposed by the employer for more than 110 hours of
work in a period of 12 calendar months (including those working
under RA appointments on research that is or may become part of
their dissertation), are regular part-time employees under RCW
41.56.203 and WAC 391-35-350, and are eligible voters in this
proceeding.
5. Students whose service expectancies imposed by the employer are
for 110 hours or less in a period of 12 calendar months are
casual employees excluded by WAC 391-35-350 from the bargaining
unit described in paragraph 2 of these conclusions of law, and
are not eligible voters in this proceeding.
6. The evaluation of the showing of interest supplied by the
Graduate Student Employee Action Coalition, UAW, is a function
excluded from the definition of agency action under the
Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW, and is not
subject to challenge by the employer under WAC 391-25-110.
7. The authorization cards filed by the Graduate Student Employee
Action Coalition, UAW with the Commission on the effective date
of Chapter 34, Laws of 2002, cannot be counted as actual
evidence of representation authorization for purposes of a
cross-check under RCW 41.56.060 and WAC 391-25-391, because
they were signed by the employees at a time when no collective
bargaining statute was in effect covering their employment.
8. A representation election under RCW 41.56.060 and .070 is the
appropriate method for determining the question concerning
representation that now exists in the bargaining unit described
in paragraph 2 of these conclusions of law.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
1. Within 14 days following the date of this order, the University
of Washington shall file and serve a single list, integrating
all classifications listed in RCW 41.56.203, containing the
names and residence addresses of all student/ employees who are
or may be eligible voters in the election to be conducted in
this proceeding based on:
a. Having worked more than 110 hours in one or any
combination of the categories listed in RCW 41.56.203(1),
during the one period commencing with the winter quarter
of the 2002-2003 academic year and continuing through the
autumn quarter of the 2003-2004 academic year; or
b. Having been given a service appointment in one or any
combination of the teaching assistant, staff assistant,
and research assistant categories listed in RCW
41.56.203(1) for the 2003-2004 academic year or beyond
which is stated in terms of a "half-time" or "20 hours per
week" or any similar service expectancy.
2. A representation election shall be conducted by mail ballot,
under the direction of the Public Employment Relations
Commission, in the appropriate bargaining unit described in
paragraph 2 of the foregoing conclusions of law, to determine
whether a majority of the student/employees in that bargaining
unit desire to be represented by the Graduate Student Employee
Action Coalition, UAW, for purposes of collective bargaining
with the University of Washington.
DATED at Olympia, Washington, this 16th day of December, 2003.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
MARVIN L. SCHURKE, Executive Director
This order may be appealed by filing
timely objections with the Commission
under WAC 391-25-590.