DECISION 10441 (CCOL)

James Craven (Craven) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Clark College (employer) alleging interference with employee rights, domination or assistance of a union, discrimination, discrimination for filing charges, and “other” unfair labor practices, in violation of Chapter 28B.52 RCW. Craven’s allegations concerned employer discipline and other actions against him, which he alleged were discriminatory. The complaint did not indicate that the employer disciplined or took other actions against Craven in reprisal for his union activity, or that the employer had interfered with the internal affairs or finances of the union or assisted the union, and did not specify “other” violations. A deficiency notice was issued.

Craven filed an amended complaint withdrawing allegations of other violations, but re-alleging the remaining charges. There was no evidence indicating domination or assistance of a union. Regarding the interference and discrimination charges, Craven argued that as a union member and division chair, he engaged in union activities in disputes with the employer. However, he offered no evidence that the union appointed him as its agent or that the employer knew he was acting as a union agent. Craven failed to provide sufficient evidence of his union activities or employer retaliation for union activities.

Regarding discrimination for filing charges, Craven’s union had filed an unfair labor practice complaint on his behalf in March 2008. Shortly after the union’s filing, another employee lodged a complaint against him. Craven alleged that this was evidence of discrimination. However, Craven did not present sufficient evidence indicating that the employer had retaliated against him for filing charges.

The amended complaint was dismissed.

For the full decision, click here.

By: David I. Gedrose, Unfair Labor Practice Manager
June 12, 2009

Bonnie Terada, for the employer.
James Craven, for the complainant.

Case 22431-U-09-5727

DIG