CITY OF BRIER
and
PAUL GRASS

DECISION 10013 (PECB)

Issue 1: Did the employer discriminate against Grass in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) by terminating him in reprisal for engaging in protected union activities?

Issue 2: Did the employer interfere with Grass’s rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) when Chief of Police Lane warned Grass about his union association?

Issue 3: Did the employer interfere with Grass’s rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) by refusing his request for union representation during his termination meeting?

The Examiner rules that the employer retaliated against Grass for participating in union activities, including serving as union vice president, participating in contract negotiations and “aligning himself” with the activities of union president Murphy. The employer interfered with Grass’s rights and discriminated against him for engaging in activities protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW. The employer did not commit an unfair labor practice when it failed to honor Grass’s request for union representation at his termination meeting.

For the full decision, click here.

By: Karyl Elinski, Examiner
March 21, 2008

Eileen M. Lawrence, for the employer.
Alex J. Skalbania, for the complainant.

Case 20933-U-07-5342

KXE