Issue 1: Did the Examiner correctly dismiss the union’s claim of unlawful discrimination against employee Deborah Youderian?

Issue 2: Did the Examiner correctly dismiss the union’s claim of unlawful interference with Youderian’s union activity?

Issue 3: Did the Examiner correctly dismiss the union’s claim that the employer failed and refused to provide information that was necessary and relevant to collective bargaining?

We affirm the Examiner’s decision dismissing the claims of discrimination under RCW 41.56.140(1) and interference under RCW 41.56.140(1). With regard to the allegation that the employer failed and refused to provide information under RCW 41.56.140(4), we reverse the Examiner’s decision. When an employer is faced with an information request from its employees’ collective bargaining representative, the employer has an obligation to provide the requested information or notify the union if it does not believe the information is relevant to collective bargaining activities. In the case at hand, the union requested information that was relevant to collective bargaining and contract administration. The employer should have responded by providing the union with the information it requested. The employer violated RCW 41.56.140(4) by failing to provide the union with a copy of the document it requested and informing the union in writing that the document did not exist when it did in fact exist.

For the full decision, click here.

By: Marilyn Glenn Sayan, Chairperson
Pamela G. Bradburn, Commissioner
Douglas G. Mooney, Commissioner
January 2, 2008

Kaththleen Phair Barnard, for the union.
John M. Cerqui, for the employer.

Case 20309-U-06-5173

ERC/DDR