Issue 1: Did the employer circumvent the exclusive bargaining representative in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) through its communications with Officer Brian Dahl regarding his return to work agreement?

Issue 2: Did the employer refuse to bargain with the exclusive bargaining representative in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) by failing to bargain the provisions of Dahl’s return to work order?

Issue 3: Did the employer refuse to bargain a drug testing procedure for all bargaining unit employees in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)?

The Commission affirms the Examiner’s decision that the employer did not circumvent the union when it discussed the terms of the return to work order directly with Dahl and did not refuse to bargain the terms of Dahl’s return to work order. This record supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that the employer’s discussions regarding the return to work order with Dahl occurred while the union was present. Additionally this record also supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that the union was afforded the opportunity to negotiate with the employer regarding the return to work order. The Commission affirms the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that the employer refused to bargain a random drug testing procedure. When the employer expressed its desire for a random drug testing program that covered all bargaining unit employees and the union presented the employer with its proposal, the employer was obligated to engage in bargaining with the union.

For the full decision, click here.

By: Marilyn Glenn Sayan, Chairperson
Pamela G. Bradburn, Commissioner
Douglas G. Mooney, Commissioner
April 25, 2008

James M. Cline, for the union.
Bruce Schroeder and Kristen D. Anger, for the employer.

Case 19206-U-05-4882

ERC