Community College 7 - Shoreline (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 9094 (PSRA, 2005)Community College 7 - Shoreline (Washington Federation of State
Employees), Decision 9094 (PSRA, 2005)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 7, )
(SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE),) CASE DECISION
) 18920-U-04-4814 9094 - PSRA
Employer. ) 18947-U-04-4819 9095 - PSRA
) 18951-U-04-4821 9096 - PSRA
------------------------------) 18952-U-04-4822 9097 - PSRA
ARLENE STRONG, ANDREW CONRAD, ) 18960-U-04-4824 9098 - PSRA
CATHY FLETCHER, BRAD COULTER, ) 18961-U-04-4825 9099 - PSRA
DEBBY HUNTER, CECILY SHERRITT ) 18962-U-04-4826 9100 - PSRA
PAULINE SIMONS, MARGIELIZE ) 18963-U-04-4827 9101 - PSRA
VILLACERAN, AMY STAPLETON, ) 18965-U-04-4828 9102 - PSRA
BARBARA KRISTEK, MARY CHEUNG, ) 18976-U-04-4830 9103 - PSRA
MICHELLE ORTEGA, DIANE DING, ) 18977-U-04-4831 9104 - PSRA
PETER PICKERING, KARI FRITZEN,) 18978-U-04-4832 9105 - PSRA
STEVE GIBLER, ELIZABETH BAIN, ) 18987-U-04-4833 9106 - PSRA
AND KIMBERLY ANNE CAMERN, ) 18995-U-04-4836 9107 - PSRA
) 18997-U-04-4838 9108 - PSRA
Complainants, ) 18998-U-04-4839 9109 - PSRA
) 19025-U-04-4844 9110 - PSRA
vs. ) 19026-U-04-4845 9111 - PSRA
)
WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
STATE EMPLOYEES, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
) AND ORDER
Respondent. )
______________________________)
Law Offices of Sidney J. Strong, by Sidney J. Strong, Attorney
at Law, for the complainant employees.
Parr Younglove Lyman & Coker, by Edward E. Younglove, III, for
the union.
Between October 21 and December 2, 2004, a total of 18 classified
employees of Community College District 7 d/b/a Shoreline Community
College (Shoreline) filed similar unfair labor practice complaints
with the Public Employment Relations Commission naming the
Washington Federation of State Employees (union) as respondent.(fn:1)
The cases were consolidated for processing, based on the facts that:
(1) all of the employees involved alleged they were represented by
the union at Shoreline; and (2) all of the charges involved alleged
failure of the union to provide adequate notice and information in
advance of a ratification vote on the first collective bargaining
agreement negotiated by the union under the Personnel System Reform
Act of 2002 (PSRA). Examiner Walter M. Stuteville held a hearing on
the consolidated matters on April 25 and 26, 2005. The parties
filed post-hearing briefs.
____________________
fn:1 The names of the individual complainants and their respective
case numbers are set forth in the caption in the order in which the
complaints were filed.
ISSUES
1. Does the Commission have jurisdiction to adjudicate allegations
of union restraint of employee rights concerning the
ratification of a collective bargaining agreement?
2. Did the union violate the PSRA by failing to give adequate
notice to the complainants concerning their right to vote on
ratification of the 2005-2007 collective bargaining agreement?
3. Did the union violate the PSRA by failing to give adequate
information to the complainants concerning the union security
provision contained in that collective bargaining agreement?
The Examiner rules that: (1) the Commission has jurisdiction in this
matter; (2) the union violated the statute by failing to provide the
complainants with adequate notice and information concerning their
right to vote on the contract ratification; and (3) the union
violated the statute by failing to explain that a union security
provision was included in the contract that it had agreed to submit
for ratification by all bargaining unit employees. To remedy the
unlawful actions, the Examiner orders the union to cease and desist
from seeking to enforce the 2005-2007 collective bargaining
agreement until such time as it is ratified in conformity with the
terms agreed upon by the union in bargaining.
ISSUE 1: DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE JURISDICTION IN THESE CASES?
Restraint Prohibited
The Personnel System Reform Act of 2002, Chapter 41.80 RCW, governs
these parties, and protects the rights of state employees:
RCW 41.80.050 RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES. Except as may be
specifically limited by this chapter, employees shall have the
right to self-organize, to form, join, or assist employee
organizations, and to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of
collective bargaining free from interference, restraint, or
coercion. Employees shall also have the right to refrain from
any or all such activities except to the extent that they may
be required to pay a fee to an exclusive bargaining
representative under a union security provision authorized by
this chapter.
(emphasis added). Those rights are protected by the unfair labor
practice provisions of the PSRA, and by the Commission's delegated
authority to determine and remedy unfair labor practices:
RCW 41.80.110 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ENUMERATED.
. . . .
(2) It is an unfair labor practice for an employee
organization:
(a) To restrain or coerce an employee in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by this chapter . . .
(emphasis added). The Commission has adopted Chapter 391-45 WAC to
regulate the processing of unfair labor practice cases.
In King County, Decision 7108 (PECB, 2000), the counterpart
provisions of the Public Employee's Collective Bargaining Act,
Chapter 41.56 RCW (at RCW 41.56.040 and 41.56.150(1)) was discussed,
as follows:
To establish interference with protected rights, a complainant
need only prove that a party engaged in conduct which employees
reasonably perceived as a threat of reprisal or force or
promise of benefit associated with their union activity. The
actual intent is not a factor or defense. City of Seattle,
Decision 3066 (PECB, 1998), affirmed Decision 3066-A (PECB, 1989).
The "restraint" and "coercion" terms appear in both Chapters 41.56
and 41.80 RCW, and the Examiner applies the same standards to the
facts and evidence in these cases.
Analysis of Jurisdiction Issue
The Examiner has considered, and rejected, several arguments
advanced by the union.
Tradition cited by the union is inapposite, even though the Examiner
agrees that nothing in Chapter 41.06 or 41.80 RCW guarantees all
bargaining unit members a right to participate in a ratification
vote conducted by a union on a tentative agreement reached in
collective bargaining. For reasons detailed below, this is NOT a
traditional situation.
Commission precedents cited by the union are inapposite, even though
the Commission generally declines to exercise jurisdiction over
internal union affairs. The precedents cited by the union are
distinguishable on their facts: Lewis County, Decision 464-A (PECB,
1978) held that bargaining unit employees who were not union members
did not have a right to participate in union meetings called to
formulate proposals for future bargaining, but did not address the
rights of non-members once a union has given them voting rights.
Lake Washington School District, Decision 6891 (PECB, 1999),
concerned the right of union members to vote by absentee ballot in
union elections, and attempts by union members to have specific
issues presented in negotiations,(fn:2) but did not address the rights
of non-members.
____________________
fn:2 The Lake Washington decision concerned an appeal from a
preliminary ruling issued without benefit of a full evidentiary
record. It involved alleged irregularities in the tally of contract
ratification ballots (which is factually similar to these cases),
but the complainants were union members (which kept that situation
closer to "internal union affairs" than these cases).
Federal precedents provide a basis for scrutiny of the union conduct
at issue here. The preliminary rulings in each of these cases cited
Branch 6000, Letter Carriers, 232 NLRB 263 (1977) and Boilermakers
Local 202 (Henders Boiler & Tank Co.), 300 NLRB 28 (1990), where the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asserted jurisdiction. In
both of those casess, unions abdicated their roles as exclusive
bargaining representatives by submitting questions to referendum
votes among all bargaining unit employees, and the NLRB then
required those unions to provide fairness to all bargaining unit
employees. Thus, shortcomings on the part of the unions in such
situations are subject to scrutiny before labor relations agencies
as violations of the statutory prohibition of restraint and
coercion. This Examiner adopted a similar standard in Western
Washington University, Decision 8849 (PSRA, 2005), and likewise
adopts that standard in these cases.(fn:3)
____________________
fn:3 In both NLRB decisions, the fact of the union giving all
bargaining unit employees a right to vote on a decision that could
otherwise have been a union decision resulted in NLRB scrutiny.
Factual differences between the NLRB cases and the cases at hand
were discussed by this Examiner in the Western Washington decision,
and that analysis is incorporated here by reference.
Commission precedent provides a basis for scrutiny of contract
ratification processes. The Commission asserted jurisdiction in
Naches Valley School District, Decision 2516-A (EDUC, 1987), where a
union was obligated to accept a contract notwithstanding a negative
vote of its members, because it had induced that employer to
implement the new contract and accepted the benefits of the new
contract. The Commission regulates the collective bargaining
process generally, and thus scrutinized a contract ratification
process that affected the collective bargaining process.(fn:4) An apt
response to the union's assertion that there is no statutory support
for such an examination is that no language in the PSRA contradicts
the Naches Valley precedent.
____________________
fn:4 The Naches decisions point out that collective bargaining
statutes do not guarantee any employees a right to ratify collective
bargaining agreements negotiated by their exclusive bargaining representative.
The instant cases present unique facts closely related to the "duty
of fair representation" owed by exclusive bargaining representatives
to all bargaining unit employees. That duty has been enforced by
labor relations agencies since at least Miranda Fuel Co., 140 NLRB
181 (1962), and by the federal courts since at least NLRB v.
Teamsters Local 282 (Transit-Mix Concrete), 740 F.2d 141 (2d cir.,
1984). The instant cases arise out of the first collective
bargaining under a new statute and are within a series of cases of
first impression for the Commission as they involve the rare
circumstance of a union having agreed with an employer in collective
bargaining to allow non-member employees to vote on ratification of
the contract.
Conclusion as to Jurisdiction
In light of the statutory authority of the Commission to prevent
restraint and coercion of employees, and in light of the NLRB and
Commission precedents supporting scrutiny of union actions at the
fringe of "internal" union affairs, it is appropriate for the
Commission to assert jurisdiction in these cases.
ISSUE 2: DID THE UNION FAIL TO PROVIDE THE COMPLAINANTS WITH
ADEQUATE NOTICE AND INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE
ON RATIFICATION OF THE 2005-2007 CONTRACT?
The New Collective Bargaining Statute
Along with numerous changes to the State Civil Service Law, Chapter
41.06 RCW, the PSRA created an entirely new collective bargaining
process for civil service employees of the state of Washington:
First, the scope of collective bargaining under the PSRA
includes, for the first time:(fn:5) (1) the wages of state
employees;(fn:6) (2) the amount of money paid by the state toward the
cost of fringe benefits for state employees;(fn:7) and (3) union
security provisions obligating some or all bargaining unit employees
to join the union or pay a representation fee.(fn:8)
____________________
fn:5 Prior to the PSRA, collective bargaining under RCW 41.06.150
was limited to matters controlled by the agency head or institution
of higher education.
fn:6 Prior to the PSRA, the wages of state employees were set by
the Washington Personnel Resources Board or its predecessors,
implementing legislative appropriations.
fn:7 Prior to the PSRA, insurance benefits made available to state
employees were set by legislative appropriations based on
recommendations of another state board.
fn:8 Prior to the PSRA, union security obligations were imposed
and/or terminated in state employee bargaining units only by
elections conducted by the Department of Personnel under RCW
41.06.150 as then in effect.
Second, collective bargaining agreements under the PSRA were to
go into effect no earlier than July 1, 2005,(fn:9) and RCW
41.80.010(3)(a) effectively required the union to complete its
negotiations for its first PSRA contracts by October 1, 2004.(fn:10)
____________________
fn:9 See RCW 41.80.001.
fn:10 The October 1 deadline is related to approval of contracts by
the director of the Office of Financial Management (in RCW
41.80.010(3)(b)), submission of a request for funds by the Governor
to the Legislature (in RCW 41.80.010(3)), and legislative approval
or rejection of the request for funds as a whole (in the final
paragraph of RCW 41.80.010(3).
The Bargaining Process at Shoreline
The union represented two bargaining units at Shoreline before the
PSRA was enacted, and those units carried over under RCW 41.80.070:
(1) A unit of nonsupervisory custodians; and (2) a unit of
nonsupervisory classified employees other than custodians. On May
26, 2004, the union was certified as exclusive bargaining
representative of a unit of supervisory classified employees in
Community College 7 (Shoreline), Decision 8574 (PSRA, 2004).(fn:11)
____________________
fn:11 Testimony in this case referred to there being about 150
employees in the classified units, but records transferred to the
Commission under RCW 41.80.901 and/or maintained by the Commission
suggest a total of as many as 222 employees (about 29 in the
custodians unit, about 173 in the classified unit, and about 20 in
the supervisors unit).
Negotiations began in mid-April of 2004 for the first contracts to
be negotiated under the PSRA. Exercising an option made available
in RCW 41.80.010(4),(fn:12) the Governor's designee bargained with the
union for a coalition of higher education institutions that included
12 of the state's community college districts (including Shoreline)
and The Evergreen State College.
____________________
fn:12 The operative language is:
A governing board may elect to have its nego-tiations conducted by
the governor or gover-nor's designee under the procedures provided
for general government agencies . . . .
Public information was limited during the negotiations, according to
Peggy Lytle, a classified employee at the college. She has been a
union shop steward for ten years, and was a member of the union's
negotiating team during the negotiations in 2004. She testified
that the parties agreed to a ground rule that generally precluded
public disclosure or public discussion of the issues being
negotiated, and Lytle interpreted that ground rule to mean:
[U]ntil the articles were . . . tentatively agreed upon by both
by the negotiating teams, then we weren't allowed to speak to
them at all, and we couldn't talk about them or discuss them. .
. . But what were things that we couldn't speak about was the
negotiations themselves and, you know, the proposals and
counter-proposals and all of that.
The ground rule did allow the parties to talk with their respective
constituencies, but the evidence supports a conclusion that there
was a dearth of information to employees about the negotiations.
A tentative agreement was reached by the union and the Governor's
designee on September 17, 2004. The union's chief negotiator,
Sherri-Ann Burk, testified that agreement on union security was a
final piece of the bargain. Exhibit 4 in this proceeding consists
of five pages that include "tentative agreement" and "9/17/04 9:00
p.m." in their headers.(fn:13) The paragraph at the bottom of the
first and second pages reads as follows:
____________________
fn:13 The first page bears signatures of the chief negotiators and
handwritten "9/17/04" dates; the second page appears to be an
unsigned copy of the first; the third through fifth pages contain
contract language for a "Dues Deduction" article that includes union
security obliga-tions for all employees covered by the contract.
The Union agrees to allow all employees in the bargaining units
for which they represent to vote, by Employer, on the
ratification of this Agreement, with the understanding that
this does not set any precedent for future ratification votes.
Taken together, the testimony and documents provide basis for an
inference that the union's agreement to open its ratification
process to non-members was a quid pro quo for the employer's
agreement on the union security provision.
Applying the statutory prohibition of restraint of employees, the
NLRB precedents, and the Commission precedents as discussed in the
analysis of Issue 1, above, the union both: (1) undertook an
obligation of good faith toward the employer;(fn:14) and (2) undertook
an obligation to provide notice and fairness to all bargaining unit
employees.(fn:15) In evaluating the union's subsequent actions (or
inaction), the Examiner starts from two premises:
____________________
fn:14 The employer has not filed a complaint against the union (as
in Naches Valley School District, Decision 2516-A, and the Examiner
does not decide this case from a "breach of good faith toward the
employer" perspective.
fn:15 The union has not filed a complaint against the employer for
insisting to impasse upon a permissive subject (as in PUD 1 of Clark
County, Decision 2045-B (PECB, 1989), where an employer insisted
upon withdrawal of unfair labor practices as a condition of
agreement), and the Examiner does not decide whether it was wise for
the union to agree to a ratification process replicating the union
shop elections repealed from RCW 41.06.150.
First, that the union's agreement to allow non-members voting
rights was clearly contrary to the union's usual procedure in which
only union members would be eligible to vote.(fn:16)
____________________
fn:16 Burke testified that she normally: Conducts ratification by
mail ballot; sends union members a letter about the process and a
copy of the tentative agreement; and allows 10 to 15 days before the
deadline for return of ballots. That ratification process often
takes 30 to 45 days.
Second, that bargaining unit employees who were not union
members had no basis to expect, let alone demand, that they would be
eligible voters in any contract ratification process.(fn:17)
____________________
fn:17 This union only represents employees of the state of
Washington, and the Examiner infers that the ratification process
described by Burke would have been the process familiar to the
employer and to the employees represented by the union.
The Contract Ratification Process
The ground rule limiting public discussion of bargaining issues and
the last-minute quid pro quo (linking union security and
ratification) had a combined effect: No information concerning
either the union security issue or the voting process had been
imparted to bargaining unit employees prior to September 17, 2004.
According to the testimony of Lytle, the resolution of the
negotiations just before the opening of the the academic year at
Shoreline caused an additional complication, because bargaining unit
employees were very busy with their regular duties in September 2004.
The union made some effort to communicate with bargaining unit
employees about the ratification process. Lytle's testimony
discloses that she used two distinctly different methods, however:
As to the custodians unit, Lytle hand-delivered notices of the
ratification vote to the campus mailboxes of the employees.(fn:18)
____________________
fn:18 Notice is taken of records transferred to the Commission
under RCW 41.80.901, which indicate a union shop had been approved
for that bargaining unit under RCW 41.06.150. Lytle testified that
the employees in that unit were "under a different contract" and
were all either union members or were paying an agency fee.
As to the classified (except custodians) and supervisors units,
Lytle testified that the only information that she was able to get
out to the bargaining unit employees was by means of a LISTSERV
message that she sent out a week after the tentative agreement was
reached, on Friday, September 24, 2004. It stated that the
ratification vote would be held on Wednesday, September 29, 2005.
That LISTSERV message stated that the contract would be available at
the voting site, and provided her campus extension number so
employees could contact her with questions.
Either of those methodologies was clearly a far cry from the normal
ratification practices described by Sherri-Ann Burke, the union's
senior field representative and chief union spokesperson in the
community college negotiations.
The ratification vote results were tallied and announced on
September 29, 2004. Only 33 employees voted.(fn:19) The new
collective bargaining agreement was ratified.
____________________
fn:19 This is understood to be the combined votes of all three
bargaining units at Shoreline, since there was no evidence
suggesting the units voted separately.
Insufficiency of Notice to Non-Members
Although there could be many reasons why the number of employees
voting on ratification was low, the testimony presented at the
hearing establishes that employees who were not union members were
not given adequate notice of their voting rights:
First, Lytle's choice of technology delayed getting out any
information to employees in the classified (except custodians) and
supervisors units. The LISTSERV message was sent by means of a
campus-wide system maintained by the employer to direct information
to various categories of e-mail users on its computer system, and
Lytle had to negotiate use of the LISTSERV system with the employer
before sending her message. The time taken up for those negotations
accounts for over half of the time that elapsed between the
"September 17 at 9:00 p.m." time stated on the tentative agreement
documents in evidence and the "September 29 at 1:30 p.m." close of
the polls on ratification.(fn:20)
____________________
fn:20 In fact, 56% of the time.
Second, Lytle testified that she "[D]idn't have any idea who
was and who wasn't subscribed to" the classified LISTERV list. In
fact, evidence in this record indicates that the group referred to
as the "classified LISTSERV" in testimony was not limited to
classified employees and did not include all classified employees.
Third, the history of bargaining at Shoreline undoubtedly
contributed to employee apathy about the collective bargaining
process, thereby compounding the lack of information about the
negotiations held under the PSRA in 2004. According to this record,
the last actual contract negotiations at Shoreline took place in
1985, and the contract was "rolled over" thereafter by operation of
an automatic renewal clause. Thus, neither union members nor
bargaining unit employees who were not union members had recent
experience with union organizing or informational activities in
preparation for contract negotiations, employee input on bargaining
issues, or ratification of tentative agreements.
The testimony of several bargaining unit employees supports a
conclusion that the union did not provide adequate notice of the
ratification process:
* When asked how she learned about the ratification vote, Marilu
Neally, a Program Assistant in the college Athletic Department,
stated:
Mostly coworkers who were kind of confused about it, and
we would talk, like, at lunch. And they would say, "well,
do you know what's going on?" and this person would have
an idea, and then this person would throw something up.
So there was a lot of confusion, and nobody really I
mean, people that I was around, nobody really know what
was going on or not.
Neally also testified that she contacted Lytle about the
eligibility of non-union members of the bargaining unit to
vote, that Lytle initially told her she could not vote, that
Lytle later said she could vote, and that Lytle retracted that
opinion still later. Regardless of whether Lytle made the
statements attributed to her,(fn:21) Neally's testimony clearly
indicates gross confusion about the ratification process.
____________________
fn:21 Lytle denied having this series of conversations with Neally.
* Debra Hunter, a program assistant at the college, testified
that she was aware of the ratification vote but did not
participate in it, because she believed that only union members
were eligible to vote. She further stated:
Well, I'm not altogether against the union. I just don't
know what they're about, what they do. I would have liked
to have heard what was being voted on, what advantages to
me would have been. But I definitely would have voted had
I been informed on the issues.
Hunter stated that Lytle did not give her any information about
the new contract, even though their work stations are adjacent
to one another. Hunter also testified she did not know what
"full scope collective bargaining" meant, or that state
employees had been given the right to negotiate wages and
benefits.(fn:22)
____________________
fn:22 Diane Ding, a cashier in the budget and accounting office,
gave similar testimony.
* Barbara Kristek, a supervisor secretary in the humanities
department, testified that she did receive notice of the
upcoming vote, but that she did not vote because:
Well, I'm not a member of the union. And according to
this e-mail here, which I had received, it said that union
members had been notified about the vote. And if the date
hadn't been changed, there probably wouldn't have even
been any more notification. So I assumed I hadn't been
notified by the union. I didn't belong to the union. I
didn't think I was a member of the bargaining unit.
Kristek was one of many employees that were confused by the
reference to previous voting information in the LISTSERV
message, because they had not received any previous notice.
* Pauline Simons, another cashier, and Elizabeth Bain, an office
assistant III, each stated that they believed that the term
"bargaining unit member" was synonymous with "union member."(fn:23)
____________________
fn:23 Cathy Patrick (a senior secretary), Arlene Strong (another
senior secretary) and Peter Pickering (an information systems
employee) all testified that they were deterred from voting on the
contract ratification because of similar confusion as to terminology.
* Margielize Villaceran, a program manager in the Office of
Economic Affairs, testified that she had received the September
24 LISTSERV message, but received no other notice or
information concerning what was being voted on or why.(fn:24)
____________________
fn:24 Villaceran also did not consider herself to be a "bar-gaining
unit member" because she was not a union member.
Although the complainants alleged that Lytle knowingly drafted the
election notice to mislead non-union members of the bargaining unit,
there was no evidence to substantiate such a claim. It is
sufficient to say that, for whatever reason (including the length of
time since a contract had actually been negotiated at Shoreline, and
the ground rule limiting information about the negotiations in
2004), a large number of bargaining unit employees were left with
insufficient information and notice of their right to vote on the
ratification of the 2005-2007 contract.
The union's "good faith effort" argument is not persuasive on the
record made in this case.
First, the fact that the negotiations on the first PSRA
contract were subject to a deadline of October 1, 2004, was known to
the union when the PSRA was passed by both houses of the Legislature
in May of 2002, and certainly by the first PSRA effective date that
occurred on June 13, 2002. If the union failed to inform the
employees it represented of their rights, it did so at its peril.
Second, the testimony of the union's director of public
affairs, Tim Welch, about the methods generally used by the union to
communicate with its usual constituencies does not excuse a failure
to give notice when it extends voting rights to an unusual
constituency. Welch stated that the union does not have e-mail
addresses of all bargaining unit employees, or even of its own
members, and that it relies on passive communication mechanisms to
communicate with its members.(25) Welch acknowledged that the
union's efforts were aimed at its members, and he acknowledged he
had no way of knowing whether non-members ever saw those
communications.
____________________
fn:25 Welch mentioned a web site, press releases to local news
media, notices posted on campus bulletin boards, the union
newspaper, and a telephone hot-line. Copies of special tabloids and
the union newspaper were admitted in evidence in this record.
Third, while the union did have one on-campus meeting
concerning the negotiations in 2004, the union's legislative
political action field coordinator, Althea Lute, testified that it
occurred on February 19, 2004, and that its focus was on getting
information to the newly-organized supervisors' bargaining unit.
That meeting, held more than a month before the negotiations began
and nearly seven months before the union entered into a tentative
agreement that gave non-members a right to vote on ratification of
the contract, is not evidence of a good faith attempt to get
information to the bargaining unit employees who were not union
members.
Fourth, the LISTSERV was an untried method of communication
that was used by Lytle only after a substantial delay and without
knowing exactly who was on (or omitted from) the recipient group.
Conclusion on Adequacy of Notice
The union restrained employees in the exercise of their rights by
failing to inform them of their right to vote on ratification of the
2005-2007 contract. From this Examiner's perspective, the
shortcomings of the union's efforts in the days between the quid pro
quo agreement opening its ratification process to non-members and
the actual voting were exacerbated by the failure of the union to
keep its members (let alone all bargaining unit employees) informed
during the contract negotiations in 2004. In a situation where
employees hired in the most recent 19 years had never experienced a
contract ratification process at Shoreline, the union's agreement to
give all bargaining unit employees voting rights on the contract
ratification required it to do much more than the one inherently
defective LISTSERV notice to most of the employees involved, and the
differential treatment provided to the custodians unit. As a party
to such an unusual agreement, those minimal efforts put forth by
Lytle do not even support the union's defense that it did the best
it could.
ISSUE 3: DID THE UNION UNLAWFULLY CONCEAL THE EXISTENCE OF THE
UNION SECURITY PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT TO BE RATIFIED?
The ability of unions to negotiate union security provisions, rather
than having union security obligations imposed and/or removed by
vote of the employees, was clearly among the changes that occurred
with the enactment of the PSRA. Equally clearly, union security
was among the last issues resolved in the contract negotiations that
occurred in 2004 and this union agreed to open its ratification
process to all bargaining unit employees. It is also clear that
Lytle said nothing about the union security provision in the
LISTSERV message that she sent to give bargaining unit employees
notice of the ratification vote. Lytle detailed "highlights" of
the contract:
Wage increases of 3.2% effective July 1, 2005; 1.6% effective
July 1, 2006.
Callback pay will now be 3 hours; Stand By pay will be $1.5o or
7% of salary, whichever is greater.
Salary Survey Adjustments: All represented workers who are more
than 25% behind the average salary survey will receive salary
increases in addition to the COLA's.
Health Care Premium Costs will remain at the 12% of total
medical costs during the 2 years of the contract.
In addition, the Employer paid dental care will be maintained
and the $25,000 life insurance benefit is restored.
Promotions: If an employee is promoted more than six ranges,
the employee will receive a ten percent (10%) increse. Right
now it is a 5% increase.
Employees will receive an additional Personal Holiday to be
used during the two-year period of the contract.
Parking remains as is.
A copy of the contract will be available at the voting sites.
For more information on contract language check out the unions
website @ www.wfse.org.
It is not necessary for the Examiner to decide whether Lytle was
engaging in deliberate concealment, because the test is the
reasonable perceptions of the employees. The testimony of several
witnesses called by the complainants supports a conclusion that the
failure to mention the union security provision was at least a
contributing factor to the exceedingly low turnout (constituting
about 15 percent, if the total number of employees is at or near the
222 on the Commission's records) at the ratification vote.
Conclusion on Failure to Mention Union Security
Although the witnesses that testified in this proceeding about the
lack of information given to them and their confusion about the
contract terms was small in comparison to the total number of
employees eligible to vote on this campus, it is nevertheless
indicative of a serious problem in the manner in which the union
represented the interests of these bargaining units in conducting
the ratification election. Acknowledging the difficulty of putting
together a state-wide election process in many different campuses
and work settings in a very short time, it is still astonishing that
so few employees understood what was going on and how the results of
the ratification vote would affect each of them. Unions owe a duty
of fair representation to all employees in the bargaining units they
represent, not just those who are union members. That duty exists
irrespective of whether the employees have any voice or vote in
contract ratification processes, and it goes far beyond just
notifying personnel of the impending vote. The testimony in this
record clearly shows how poorly the union notified the employees at
Shoreline of the tentative agreement to be voted upon, and it
compounded the problem of inadequate notice when it made no mention
of the union security provision in the only information it attempted
to circulate to all bargaining unit employees. Whether this lack of
information about the union security provision was intentional or
not, it provides an additional basis to rule that the union acted in
a manner that restrained the rights of the employee that it is
certified to represent.
REMEDY
The remedial orders in unfair labor practice cases are customarily
designed to restore to aggrieved employees to the conditions that
existed prior to the violations of the statute. In this instance,
that means the conditions that existed when the union agreed to give
non-members voting rights on ratification of a new contract that was
to include a union security provision. Thus, the union cannot
enforce the new contract until and unless it is properly ratified by
a vote of all bargaining unit members.
If the union chooses to conduct a second ratification vote on the
tentative collective bargaining agreement that it had reached with
the Governor's designee on September 17, 2004, it must:
Give adequate notice of the ratification vote to all bargaining
unit employees, in order to conform with the duty of fair
representation imposed upon it by statute;
Provide adequate information to all bargaining unit employees
concerning the terms of the tentative agreement being submitted
for ratification, including a complete copy of the tentative
agreement to all prospective voters, in order to conform with
its own practices as described by union official Burke and to
conform with the duty of fair representation imposed upon it by
the statute;
It must obtain from Shoreline a current list of all bargaining
unit employees and their residence addresses; and
It must provide the Commission staff with the following
materials for mailing to all bargaining unit employees:
A notice explaining the unfair labor practice which has
been committed and the election process;
A ballot for the ratification vote;
A postage-paid envelope for each bargaining unit employee
to return the ballot to the Commission, containing the
names and addresses of bargaining unit employees needed to
check eligibility at the time the ballots are counted; and
A postage-paid envelope pre-addressed to each bargaining
unit employee, for sending out the ballot materials.
Having the ballots returned to and counted by the Commission
staff under procedures parallel to the "laboratory conditions"
procedures used for representation elections will assure all
bargaining unit employees a fair and orderly tally.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Community College District 7, d/b/a Shoreline Community College
(Shoreline), is an institution of higher education of the state
of Washington within the meaning of RCW 41.80.005(10).
2. The Washington Federation of State Employees (union), an
employee organization within the meaning of RCW 41.80.005(7),
is the exclusive bargaining representative of three bargaining
units of classified employees of Shoreline: A unit of
non-supervisory custodians (for which the union was certified
under Chapter 41.06 RCW and for which a union shop implemented
by vote of the bargaining unit employees under RCW 41.06.150
was in effect as of June 13, 2002); a unit of non-supervisory,
classified employees other than custodians (for which the union
was certified under Chapter 41.06 RCW and for which no union
shop obligation was implemented under RCW 41.06.150 as of June
13, 2002); and a unit of classified supervisors (for which the
union was certified in February 2004).
3. The union and Shoreline were parties to a collective bargaining
agreement covering the "non-supervisory, classified employees,
except custodians" bargaining unit that went into effect on
December 1, 1986. That agreement was extended from year to
year thereafter through 2003 by operation of an automatic
renewal clause, and was never re-negotiated by the union and
Shoreline.
4. Chapter 41.80 RCW, State Collective Bargaining, was enacted as
part of the Personnel System Reform Act of 2002 (PSRA), and
created an entirely new collective bargaining process for civil
service employees of the state of Washington, including
classified employees of community colleges. PSRA provisions
that took effect on June 13, 2002, carried over the bargaining
relationships that had been established previously under
Chapter 41.06 RCW. PSRA provisions that took effect on July 1,
2004, established a duty to bargain, for the first time,
concerning: (a) the wages of state employees; (b) the amount of
money paid by the state toward insurance benefits for state
employees; and (c) union security obligations requiring some or
all bargaining unit employees to become union members or pay a
representation fee.
5. The operative effect of a PSRA provision which took effect on
July 1, 2004 (RCW 41.80.010), was that negotiations for first
contracts under the new collective bargaining process had to
commence by July 1, 2004, that those negotiations had to be
completed by October 1, 2004, and that the first contracts were
to take effect no earlier than July 1, 2005.
6. In anticipation of the first of the deadlines described in
paragraph 5 of these findings of fact, the union held one
information session on the Shoreline campus during or about
February 2004. The focus of that meeting was on the separate
unit of supervisors for which the union was certified about
that time, and the testimony of union officials who
participated in that meeting supports an inference that little
or no information was provided to the employees in the
pre-existing "non-supervisory classified except custodians"
bargaining unit.
7. In anticipation of the first of the deadlines described in
paragraph 5 of these findings of fact, the union commenced
negotiations with the Governor's designee (representing a
coalition of state higher education institutions, including
Shoreline), during or about April 2004. Sherri-Ann Burke was
the union's chief spokesperson in those negotiations. Peggy
Lytle, a Shoreline classified employee, was an on-campus shop
steward for the union and was a member of the union's
negotiating team in 2004.
8. During the negotiations commenced as described in paragraph 7
of these findings of fact, the parties agreed upon a ground
rule which limited the amount and content of information that
could be made public. Lytle interpreted that ground rule to
mean that she could not discuss the parties' proposals or
counter-proposals with employees in the bargaining units at
Shoreline, and she conformed with that interpretation.
9. During the period from April 2004 through September 16, 2004,
the union did little to directly inform bargaining unit
employees at Shoreline (and particularly employees who were not
union members) about the progress of the negotiations or the
issues being discussed at the bargaining table. Any limited
union efforts in this regard were by passive means, such as the
local new media, newsletters, notices posted on bulletin
boards, and the union's website.
10. By documents dated as 9:00 p.m. on September 17, 2004, the
union and the governor's designee reached a tentative agreement
on a collective bargaining agreement under the PSRA. The
inclusion of a union security provision in the contract was
among the last issues agreed upon in those negotiations. In
connection with the parties' agreement on union security, the
union specifically and explicitly agreed to allow all
bargaining unit employees to vote on ratification of the
tentative agreement. That extension of voting rights to
bargaining unit employees who were not union members was
contrary to the union's usual voting procedures, which was to
allow only union members to vote on contact ratification.
11. The union established polling times of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
(Plant Operations Lunchroom) and 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. (room
1011M) on September 29, 2004, for the employees in the
bargaining units at Shoreline to vote on ratification of the
tentative agreement described in paragraph 10 of these findings
of fact.
12. The union directly provided employees in the "custodians"
bargaining unit with individual notices of the tentative
agreement and of the contract ratification process, by means of
Lytle leaving materials for each of those employees in their
campus mailboxes.
13. The union did not directly provide individual notices of the
tentative agreement or of the contract ratification process to
employees in the "classified except custodians" or the
"classified supervisors" bargaining units.
14. Between September 17 and September 23, 2004, the union did not
provide any notice of the tentative agreement or of the
contract ratification process to employees in the "classified
except custodians" and "classified supervisors" bargaining
units at Shoreline.
15. The only effort made by the union to provide notice of the
tentative agreement or of the contract ratification process to
employees in the "classified except custodians" and "classified
supervisors" bargaining units at Shoreline was by means of a
LISTSERV message sent by Lytle on September 24, 2004. When she
sought and obtained permission to use the employer's LISTERV
system, Lytle was unaware of what employees were included in or
excluded from the coverage of that system. In fact, the
so-called "Classified LISTSERV" Lytle used neither includes all
classified employees nor is limited to classified employees.
16. Employees in the bargaining units represented by the union at
Shoreline gave credible testimony that they were confused by
the LISTSERV message sent by Lytle on September 24, 2004, and
particularly by portions of that message that referred to an
earlier notice to "bargaining unit members" which they had not
received, so that they reasonably perceived that they were not
eligible to vote on ratification of the tentative agreement.
17. In the context of the parties' bargaining relationship and the
union's past practices, the actions and inactions described in
paragraphs 12 through 15 of these findings of fact failed to
provide bargaining unit employees (and particularly employees
who were not union members) of their right to vote on the
ratification of the tentative agreement.
18. The message Lytle sent via the LISTSERV system on September 24,
2004, listed 11 subjects as "highlights" of the tentative
agreement, but omitted any mention of or reference to the union
security provision that would impose new obligations on members
of the "classified except custodians" and "classified
supervisors" bargaining units.
19. In the context of the parties' bargaining relationship, the
statutory change concerning union security, and the union's
agreement that essentially replicated the previous statute by
allowing all bargaining unit employees to vote on ratification
of a contract containing new union security obligations, the
actions described in paragraph 17 of these findings of fact
failed to provide bargaining unit employees (and particularly
employees who were not union members) of the contents of the
tentative agreement on which the union had agreed to give them
voting rights.
20. On September 29, 2004, only 33 employees out of the total of
approximately 222 classified employees represented by the union
at Shoreline voted on the ratification of the tentative agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in
this matter under Chapter 41.80 RCW and Chapter 391-45 WAC.
2. State civil service employees have legal standing to file, and
the Commission has jurisdiction under RCW 41.80.110 to
determine and remedy, complaints that an employee organization
has restrained or coerced such employees in the exercise of
their rights under RCW 41.80.050.
3. State civil service employees have legal standing to file, and
the Commission has jurisdiction under RCW 41.80.110 to
determine and remedy, complaints that an employee organization
has restrained or coerced such employees in the exercise of
voting rights created by agreement of the employer and union in
collective bargaining as described in paragraph 10 of the
foregoing findings of fact.
4. By not adequately informing employees in the bargaining units
it represents at Shoreline of their right to vote on the
ratification of a new collective bargaining agreement, as
described in paragraphs 12 through 17 of the foregoing findings
of fact, the Washington Federation of State Employees
restrained those employees in the exercise of their rights
under RCW 41.80.050, and has committed an unfair labor practice
in violation of RCW 41.80.110(2)(a).
5. By not adequately informing employees in the bargaining units
it represents at Shoreline of the union security provision
contained in the tentative agreement, as described in
paragraphs 18 and 19 of the foregoing findings of fact, when
the union had agreed to permit all bargaining unit employees to
vote on ratification of that tentative agreement as described
in paragraph 10 of the foregoing findings of fact, the
Washington Federation of State Employees restrained those
employees in the exercise of their rights under RCW 41.80.050,
and has committed an unfair labor practice in violation of RCW
41.80.110(2)(a).
ORDER
The Washington Federation of State Employees, it officers and
agents, shall immediately take the following actions to remedy its
unfair labor practices:
1. CEASE AND DESIST from:
a. Enforcing or seeking to enforce at Shoreline Community
College the tentative agreement reached on September 17,
2004, or any collective bargaining agreement resulting
from any purported ratification vote on that tentative
agreement conducted by the union.
b. Failing to adequately inform all bargaining unit employees
of their voting rights conferred by agreement of the union
with the employer in collective bargaining.
c. Failing to adequately inform all bargaining unit employees
of the contents of the tentative agreement that the union
agreed to submit for ratification by vote of all
bargaining employees, with specific reference to the union
security provision.
d. In any other manner, restraining or coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights under Chapter 41.80 RCW.
2. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS to effectuate the
purposes and policies of Chapter 41.80 RCW.
a. Commence enforcement at Shoreline Community College of the
tentative agreement reached on September 17, 2004, and of
any collective bargaining agreement resulting from that
tentative agreement, only upon ratification of that
tentative agreement in conformity with the following
procedure:
i. The union must provide a copy of the collective
bargaining agreement proposed for ratification
directly to each employee in the bargaining units
represented by the union at Shoreline Community
College, either by delivery (with the consent of the
employer) to the individual mailboxes maintained by
the employer for each such employee, or through the
United States Mail addressed to the residences of
each such employee.
ii. The union must provide the Commission staff with
notices in the form attached as "Appendix A" to this
order, in sufficient number to mail copies to each
employee in the bargaining units represented by the
union at Shoreline Community College plus a 25 per
cent excess to allow for spoilage and requests for
additional materials.
iii. The union must provide the Commission staff with
ballots allowing all bargaining unit employees to
vote "Yes" or "No" on ratification of the tentative
agreement reached on September 17, 2004, in
sufficient number to mail copies to each employee in
the bargaining units represented by the union at
Shoreline Community College plus a 25 per cent
excess to allow for spoilage and requests for
duplicate ballots.
iv. The union must provide the Commission staff with
envelopes addressed for return to the Commission's
Olympia office and pre-labeled with the names and
addresses of employees in the bargaining units
represented by the union at Shoreline Community
College, in sufficient number to mail to those
employees plus a 25 per cent excess to allow for
spoilage and requests for duplicate ballots.
v. The union must provide the Commission staff with
plain envelopes for use as secrecy envelopes that
are smaller than those described in subparagraph iv.
of this paragraph 2.a., in sufficient number to mail
the employees plus a 25 per cent excess to allow for
spoilage and requests for duplicate ballots.
vi. The union must provide the Commission staff with
envelopes of sufficient size to contain the
materials described in subparagraphs ii. through v.
of this paragraph 2.a., pre-addressed to the
employees in the bargaining units represented by the
union at Shoreline Community College, plus a 25 per
cent excess of similar envelopes to allow for
spoilage and requests for duplicate ballots.
vii. The union must provide the Commission staff with
postage stamps sufficient to mail the envelopes
described in subparagraphs (iv) and (vi) of this
paragraph 2.a., plus a 25 per cent excess of postage
stamps to allow for spoilage and requests for
duplicate ballots, and any unused postage stamps
shall be kept separately by the Commission staff and
shall be returned to the union upon the issuance of
a tally of the ratification vote.
viii. The union must consent to have the ballots on
the ratification vote opened and counted by the
Commission staff under the procedures
customarily used for representation elections,
and to be bound by the results of the
ratification vote as indicated on the tally of
ballots issued by the Commission staff. If the
tentative agreement is not ratified through the
procedure set forth in this paragraph 2.a., the
union shall not seek a re-vote on ratification
of the tentative agreement reached September 17,
2004, and shall reopen negotiations with the
employer.
b. Post, in conspicuous places on the employer's premises
where union notices to all employees are usually posted,
copies of the notice marked "Appendix B" attached to this
order. Such notices shall be duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Washington Federation of State
Employees. Such notices shall remain posted for 60 days.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent union to
ensure that such notices are not removed, altered,
defaced, or covered by other material.
c. Read the notice marked "Appendix B" attached to this order
at a meeting of all employees in the bargaining units
represented by the union at Shoreline Community College
held prior to the mailing of ballots for the ratification
vote conducted as described in paragraph 2.a. of this order.
d. Notify each of the above-named complainants, in writing,
within 20 days following the date of this order, as to
what steps have been taken to comply with this order, and
at the same time provide each named complainant with a
signed copy of the "Appendix B" attached to this order.
e. Notify the Compliance Manager of the Public Employment
Relations Commission, in writing, within 20 days following
the date of this order, as to what steps have been taken
to comply with this order, and at the same time provide
each named complainant with a signed copy of the "Appendix
B" attached to this order.
Issued at Olympia, Washington, on the 19th day of September, 2005.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
WALTER M. STUTEVILLE, Examiner
This order will be the final order of the
agency unless a notice of appeal is filed
with the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.
APPENDIX A
{Washington Federation of State Employees logo or letterhead, if it
so desires}
NOTICE
RATIFICATION VOTE ON 2005-2007 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
On September 17, 2004, the Washington Federation of State Employees
(WFSE) reached a tentative agreement with the Governor's designee
(representing a coalition of state higher education institutions
that included Shoreline Community College) which included the
following language:
The Union agrees to allow all employees in the bargaining
units for which they represent to vote, by Employer, on the
ratification of this Agreement, with the understanding that
this does not set any precedent for future ratification votes.
The WFSE conducted a ratification vote on September 29, 2004, but
several Shoreline Community College employees filed unfair labor
practice complaints challenging the sufficiency of the notice and
information provided by the WFSE in advance of that ratification
vote. The Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), the state
agency responsible for impartial administration of state collective
bargaining laws, held a hearing and found that the WFSE restrained
Shoreline Community College employees in the exercise of their
rights under state law by: (1) Failing to give employees represented
by the WFSE (and particularly employees who were not WFSE members)
notice of the ratification vote; and (2) Failing to give employees
represented by the WFSE (and particularly employees who were not
WFSE members) information about a union security provision which, if
the tentative agreement is approved, will require all employees to
join the WFSE or pay a representation fee.
The remedial order issued by PERC prevents the WFSE from enforcing
the 2005-2007 collective bargaining agreement on the basis of the
ratification vote conducted in September 2004, but permits the WFSE
to have a new ratification vote conducted under the supervision of
PERC.
THIS NEW RATIFICATION VOTE is being conducted by secret-ballot among
employees of:
SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN THE BARGAINING UNITS DESCRIBED AS:
* All non-supervisory custodians;
* All non-supervisory classified employees except
custodians; and
* All supervisory classified employees.
All employees (including those who are not union members) will be
eligible to vote if they were employed within one of those
bargaining units on {INSERT DATE OF MAILING}, and continue to be so
employed on the date of the tally of ballots. THE MAJORITY OF THE
VALID BALLOTS CAST WILL DETERMINE THE OUTCOME of the election.
THE ELECTION WILL BE HELD BY MAIL BALLOT, with ballots returned to
and counted by PERC to alleviate any concerns about fairness or the
process. All expenses of this ratification vote are being borne by
the WFSE.
THE DEADLINE FOR RETURN OF BALLOTS TO PERC is:
{INSERT DATE AT LEAST TWO WEEKS AFTER MAILING OF BALLOTS, SELECTED
BY PERC STAFF IN CONSULTATION WITH THE WFSE}
The tally of ballots will be held on {INSERT DAY AFTER DEADLINE FOR
RETURN OF BALLOTS} at 9:00 a.m., at the Olympia office of the Public
Employment Relations Commission, 112 Henry Street NE, Suite 300,
Olympia, WA 98506.
SAMPLE BALLOT: {INSERT SAMPLE OF BALLOT PREPARED BY
WFSE}
Inquiries concerning this notice or the election process
should be directed to Sally Iverson at the Public Employment
Relations Commission . Telephone: (360) 570-7324. Fax: to
360-570-7334. Mail: P.O. Box 40919, Olympia, WA 98504-0919.
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
NOTICE
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION, A STATE AGENCY, HAS HELD A LEGAL
PROCEEDING IN WHICH ALL PARTIES WERE ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND
ARGUMENT. THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT WE HAVE COMMITTED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF A STATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAW, AND HAS ORDERED
US TO POST THIS NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES WE REPRESENT:
WE UNLAWFULLY failed to adequately inform the members of the classified
bargaining unit represented by us, the Washington Federation of State
Employees, of their right to vote in the ratification election conducted on
the new collective bargaining agreement between Shoreline Community College
and the union.
WE UNLAWFULLY failed to adequately inform the members of the classified
bargaining units represented by us, the Washington Federation of State
Employees, of the terms and conditions of the new collective bargaining
agreement that had been negotiated between Shoreline Community College and
the union.
WE UNLAWFULLY, restrained the rights of the employees of Shoreline Community
College in the exercise of their collective bargaining rights under state law.
TO REMEDY OUR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES:
WE WILL cease and desist from enforcing the terms and conditions of the
tentative collective bargaining agreement reached between representatives of
Shoreline Community College and the Washington Federation of State employees
until such time as a tentative agreement between the parties is properly
ratified by a vote of all bargaining unit employees in conformity of the
agreements reached on September 17, 2004.
WE WILL conduct a new ratification election by mail ballot on the tentative
collective bargaining agreement reached between the Washington Federation of
State Employees and Shoreline Community College on September 17, 2005 under
the supervision of the Public Employment Relations Commission.
WE WILL give each member of our classified bargaining units ample notice of
this election, a complete copy of the proposed collective bargaining
agreement prior to the date of the ratification election.
WE WILL send the Public Employment Relations Commission a full and complete
list of all employees that are members of the classified bargaining units at
Shoreline Community College and an amount of United States postage stamps
sufficient to mail a ballot and a return envelope for the mail ratification
election to be conducted by the Public Employment Relations Commission.
WE WILL not, in any manner, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their collective bargaining rights under the laws of the State of Washington.
DATED ___________ WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF STATE
EMPLOYEES
By:
Authorized Representative
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days and must not be
altered or covered by any other material. Questions about this notice or
compliance with the Commission's order may be directed to the Public
Employment Relations Commission (PERC) at 112 Henry Street N.E., PO Box
40919, Olympia, Washington 98504-0919. Telephone (360) 570-7300. The full
decision will be published on PERC's website, WWW.PERC.WA.GOV
|