STATE - ATTORNEY GENERAL and WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF STATE EMPLOYEES DECISION 9951 (PSRA) Case 20492-E-06-3163 (Consumer Protection) ISSUE 1: Is the petitioned-for bargaining unit appropriate? ISSUE 2: Are Ruth Holbrook, Macey Anthony, Cynthia Lanpher, Cordula O’Hearne, Michelle Ann Curtis, Kathleen Kostelec, Renee Shadel, and Linda Vu supervisors and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit? ISSUE 3: Should Sue Plachy be excluded as a confidential employee? ISSUE 4: Should non-permanent employees be included in the unit? ISSUE 5: Is the work done by volunteers and temporary/part-time employees enrolled as full-time work study students bargaining unit work? Case 20705-E-06-3190 (Labor and Industries) ISSUE 1: Is the petitioned-for bargaining unit appropriate? ISSUE 2: Are Shellie O’Neal, Beate Dill, Jeanette Tayor, Janice Ost, Sharleneann Wusstig, Michi Tolmie, Todd Hamilton, Marcella Walter, Carolyn Currie and Barbara Oliver supervisors and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit? ISSUE 3: Should non-permanent employees be included in the unit? Based upon the record as a whole, the Executive Director rules that neither of the proposed bargaining units sought by the union is an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining, and dismisses the petitions. Employees in the proposed bargaining units perform work similar to the work performed by other employees; the lines of supervision overlap between employees in the two petitioned-for units, as well as between those employees and other employees outside of the proposed units; the work functions of petitioned-for employees are integrated with those of other employees; there is significant interchange of employees among the employer’s divisions; all employees of this employer who work in similar classifications have access to the same training opportunities; employees regularly transfer between divisions; and petitioned-for employees work in the same locations as other employees and work under employer-wide policies and practices governing compensation and other significant terms and conditions of employment. Neither of the proposed units constitutes a functionally distinct unit that would foster sound collective bargaining. Thus, rulings on the eligibility issues are unnecessary. By: Cathleen A. Callahan, Executive Director January 11, 2008 Anita Hunter, for the union. Otto G. Klein, III, and Paige L. Dietrich, for the employer. Cases 20492-E-06-3163 and 20705-E-06-3190 CAC/SHK Untitled Document
STATE - ATTORNEY GENERAL
and
WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF STATE EMPLOYEES

DECISION 9951 (PSRA)

Case 20492-E-06-3163 (Consumer Protection)

ISSUE 1: Is the petitioned-for bargaining unit appropriate?

ISSUE 2: Are Ruth Holbrook, Macey Anthony, Cynthia Lanpher, Cordula O’Hearne, Michelle Ann Curtis, Kathleen Kostelec, Renee Shadel, and Linda Vu supervisors and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit?

ISSUE 3: Should Sue Plachy be excluded as a confidential employee?

ISSUE 4: Should non-permanent employees be included in the unit?

ISSUE 5: Is the work done by volunteers and temporary/part-time employees enrolled as full-time work study students bargaining unit work?

Case 20705-E-06-3190 (Labor and Industries)

ISSUE 1: Is the petitioned-for bargaining unit appropriate?

ISSUE 2: Are Shellie O’Neal, Beate Dill, Jeanette Tayor, Janice Ost, Sharleneann Wusstig, Michi Tolmie, Todd Hamilton, Marcella Walter, Carolyn Currie and Barbara Oliver supervisors and therefore excluded from the bargaining unit?

ISSUE 3: Should non-permanent employees be included in the unit?

Based upon the record as a whole, the Executive Director rules that neither of the proposed bargaining units sought by the union is an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining, and dismisses the petitions. Employees in the proposed bargaining units perform work similar to the work performed by other employees; the lines of supervision overlap between employees in the two petitioned-for units, as well as between those employees and other employees outside of the proposed units; the work functions of petitioned-for employees are integrated with those of other employees; there is significant interchange of employees among the employer’s divisions; all employees of this employer who work in similar classifications have access to the same training opportunities; employees regularly transfer between divisions; and petitioned-for employees work in the same locations as other employees and work under employer-wide policies and practices governing compensation and other significant terms and conditions of employment. Neither of the proposed units constitutes a functionally distinct unit that would foster sound collective bargaining. Thus, rulings on the eligibility issues are unnecessary.

For the full decision, click here.

By: Cathleen Callahan, Executive Director
January 11, 2008

Anita Hunter, for the union.
Otto G. Klein, III, and Paige L. Dietrich, for the employer.

Cases 20492-E-06-3163 and 20705-E-06-3190

CC/SHK