DECISION 10335 (PECB)

The union filed an unfair labor practice complaint alleging employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.56.140(2), by threats of reprisal or force or promises of benefit made by employer official Joel Guay to Ty Elster as a result of Elster’s union activities.

A deficiency notice was issued finding a cause of action for independent interference, but no cause of action for domination or assistance of a union, since the allegations of the complaint did not indicate that the employer had involved itself in the internal affairs or finances of the union or attempted to create, fund, or control a “company union.” RCW 41.56.140(2) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to “control, dominate or interfere with a bargaining representative.” The union filed a response stating that its complaint was not directed at the employer’s actions toward the union, but the employer’s alleged interference with a bargaining representative. RCW 41.56.030(3) defines a bargaining representative as “a lawful organization which has an one of its primary purposes the representation of employees in their employment relations with employers.” In unfair labor practice proceedings, the Commission uses the term “union” as a synonym for “bargaining representative” and interprets RCW 41.56.140(2) as prohibiting interference with a union, not individuals representing a union. A preliminary ruling and partial dismissal was issued finding a cause of action for employer independent interference and dismissing the allegations concerning domination or assistance of a union.

For the full decision, click here.

By: David I. Gedrose, Unfair Labor Practice Manager
March 23, 2009

Christopher K. Vick, for the union.
Paul A. Olsen, for the employer.

Case 22287-U-09-5684

DIG