Issue 1: Did the employer’s conduct during its negotiations with the union for a first collective bargaining agreement violate its obligation to bargain in good faith under Chapter 41.56 RCW?

Issue 2: Did the employer interfere with protected employee rights through statements made by the County Executive during a conversation with a bargaining unit employee at an ice hockey game?

Issue 3: If this Commission sustains the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that the employer refused to bargain in good faith, was the Examiner’s remedial order that sends the parties directly to interest arbitration to establish the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement appropriate?

The Commission affirms the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that the employer violated its good faith bargaining obligation through its conduct. This record demonstrates that the employer failed to bargain from the status quo, employed a strategy designed to intentionally frustrate and delay bargaining, and regressively bargained by withdrawing certain proposals. The Commission also affirms the Examiner’s decision that the statements made by the County Executive during a conversation with a bargaining unit employee interfered with protected employee rights.

The Commission amends the Examiner’s order to provide for a twenty-one calendar day period to allow the employer and union the opportunity to reach a mutually satisfactory collective bargaining agreement before sending the parties to interest arbitration, and include the possibility for employer reimbursement of expenses paid by employees for health insurance benefits under the pre-existing contract.

For the full decision, click here.

By: Marilyn Sayan Glenn, Chairperson
Pamela G. Bradburn, Commissioner
Douglas G. Mooney, Commissioner
March 20, 2008

Douglas M. Wartelle, for the union.
Lawrence B. Hannah, for the employer.

Case 20074-U-06-5105

ERC/DDR