DECISIONS

Snohomish County, Decision 12655 (PECB, 2017)

 

STATE OF WASHINGTON

 

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

 

In the matter of the petition of:   Washington state council of county and city employees For clarification of an existing bargaining unit of employees of:   snohomish county

CASE 128140-C-16   DECISION 12655 - PECB     ORDER CLARIFYING BARGAINING UNITS

 

Audrey B. Eide, General Counsel, for the Washington State Council of County and City Employees.

 

Steven J. Bladek, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney Mark K. Roe, for Snohomish County.

 

Jared C. Karstetter Jr., Attorney at Law, for the Snohomish County Juvenile Court Supervisors Association.

 

On April 21, 2016, the Washington State Council of County and City Employees (WSCCCE) filed a petition to clarify the bargaining unit placement of the Juvenile Community Corrections Supervisor (JCCO Supervisor) working for Snohomish County (employer) in the juvenile justice center.  The JCCO Supervisor position is currently included in a bargaining unit represented by the Snohomish County Juvenile Court Supervisors Association (Association). 

 

Following the certification of the Association’s bargaining unit, the employer began moving from a juvenile corrections model that focused on the use of secure detention for juvenile offenders to a model that focused on rehabilitation and helping youths learn skills for long-term success.  As a result, the duties of the JCCO Supervisor were changed to also focus on juvenile rehabilitation and probation as opposed to detention.  The employer reorganized its workforce accordingly by moving the JCCO Supervisor from detention services to probation services.

 

The WSCCCE alleges that due to the change in circumstances the JCCO Supervisor position now belongs in its bargaining unit rather than the Association’s bargaining unit.  Hearing Officer Dario de la Rosa conducted a hearing on August 31, 2016.  The employer and the WSCCCE submitted post‑hearing briefs on October 28, 2016.  The Association did not file a brief.

 

The first question to be answered is whether the WSCCCE’s unit clarification petition is timely.  If so, then the issue is whether the community of interest for the JCCO Supervisor has been sufficiently altered to warrant a transfer of the position from the Association’s bargaining unit to the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit.

 

The WSCCCE’s petition is timely.  The WSCCCE filed its petition within a reasonable period of time following a significant reorganization and material changes in working conditions for the JCCO Supervisor.  The JCCO Supervisor no longer shares a community of interest with the Association’s bargaining unit but now shares a community of interest with the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit.  Accordingly, the bargaining units are modified to remove the JCCO Supervisor from the Association’s bargaining unit and to include the position in the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Denney Juvenile Justice Center is part of the Snohomish County Superior Court and provides a variety of juvenile justice services within Snohomish County, including probation services, drug treatment court services, detention and detention alternatives services, health services, and food services.  Juvenile Detention Services and Juvenile Probation Services are two departments within the justice center.

 

The WSCCCE’s and the Association’s bargaining units were certified by this agency in 2014 and 2015, respectively.  The WSCCCE’s bargaining unit includes the Court Services Supervisor, Health Services Director, Drug Treatment Court Supervisor, and two Juvenile Probation Counselor Supervisors (JPC Supervisors).  Snohomish County, Decisions 12072-A (PECB, 2014).  The Association’s bargaining unit is solely detention focused and currently includes the JCCO Supervisor, one employee in the Kitchen Coordinator job class, and five employees in the Juvenile Corrections Officer Supervisor (JCO Supervisor) job class.  Snohomish County, Decision 12217-B (PECB, 2015).  The history surrounding the creation of each bargaining unit is explained in Snohomish County, Decision 12071 (PECB, 2014), and Snohomish County, Decision 12217-A (PECB, 2015).  The WSCCCE also represents the non‑supervisory employees working in the justice center. 

 

Detention Alternatives in Transition

Originally, the Detention Alternatives program, administered by Juvenile Detention Services, was an outlet for secure detention and offered a set of court-ordered programs with detention as the default if a juvenile offender failed his or her program.  In 2013 Snohomish County became a site for the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI).  The JDAI is a national movement focusing on reducing the use of secure detention for juveniles.

 

From 2013 to 2016 the employer shifted the focus of the Detention Alternatives program.  The program began to place greater emphasis on getting juvenile offenders in school or helping them get jobs for long-term success in the community and minimizing the use of secure detention.  Since the transition, when youths are having trouble with Detention Alternatives programs, Juvenile Community Corrections Officers work with the youths’ parents and schools to address the youths’ issues and get them back on track, rather than detain them as would have been done previously. 

 

In November 2015 the employer moved the Detention Alternatives program from Juvenile Detention Services to Juvenile Probation Services.  The program was renamed Youth Enrichment Services to recognize the change in the program’s focus that had occurred since 2013.^[1]  A May 2016 newsletter announcing the name change also stated that the program “ha[d] become community based and no longer focused on detainment.”

 

The Juvenile Community Corrections Officer Supervisor

The JCCO Supervisor is the head of the Detention Alternatives program.  James Malcolm is the current incumbent of the JCCO Supervisor position.

 

Until November 2015 the JCCO Supervisor reported to the program manager in Juvenile Detention Services.  The JCCO Supervisor worked in the secure detention facility with the JCO Supervisors and regularly interacted with them.  Snohomish County, Decision 12071.  When the Detention Alternatives program was moved from Juvenile Detention Services to Juvenile Probation Services, the JCCO Supervisor began reporting to the program manager in Juvenile Probation Services, Mike Irons.  The JCCO Supervisor position was also moved to an area outside the secure detention facility.

 

After the reorganization, the JCCO Supervisor began to have daily interaction and attend meetings with the Juvenile Probation Services program manager.  The JCCO Supervisor also began to have increasing daily contact with Juvenile Probation Counselors to discuss the youths in Detention Alternatives programs.  The JCCO Supervisor attends meetings with the JPC Supervisors twice a month and also attends management meetings with supervisors and leads from Juvenile Probation Services every other week.

 

The JCCO Supervisor no longer attends any meetings with the JCO Supervisors or employees in Juvenile Detention Services.  The JCCO Supervisor attends Detention Risk Assessment Instrument committee meetings which include employees from all departments of the Snohomish County Superior Court. 

 

On occasion, the JCCO Supervisor goes to the secure detention facility to access a file cabinet to check on warrants.  This could happen once every two weeks and the JCCO Supervisor could also have someone else do this task.  Outside of performing this task, the JCCO Supervisor does not have any contact with employees in Juvenile Detention Services.

 

Prior to 2015 the JCCO Supervisor could fill in for Juvenile Corrections Officers and JCO Supervisors in Residential Custody.  Since Malcolm became the JCCO Supervisor, he has not filled in for a Juvenile Corrections Officer or a JCO Supervisor.  No Juvenile Corrections Officer or JCO Supervisor has filled in for him.

 

ANALYSIS

 

Applicable Legal Standards

The determination of bargaining units and the certification of the exclusive bargaining representatives of appropriate units are functions delegated to the Commission by the Legislature.  RCW 41.56.060; Snohomish County, Decision 5375 (PECB, 1995).  Included in this agency’s authority to determine an appropriate bargaining unit is the power to modify that unit, upon request, through a unit clarification proceeding.  See Pierce County, Decision 7018-A (PECB, 2001).  Unit clarification cases are governed by the provisions of Chapter 391-35 WAC.

 

The general purpose of the unit clarification process is to provide this agency as well as the parties to a collective bargaining relationship a mechanism to make changes to an existing bargaining unit based upon a change in circumstances to ensure its continued appropriateness.  See, e.g., Toppenish School District, Decision 1143-A (PECB, 1981) (outlining the procedures to remove supervisors from existing bargaining units).  Because unit clarifications alter the composition of bargaining units, the Commission adopted WAC 391-35-020 to govern the time frames in which unit clarification petitions may be filed to maintain stability in the bargaining units.  Specifically, that rule requires unit clarification petitions to be “filed within a reasonable time period after a change of circumstances altering the community of interest of the employees or positions.”

 

The change in circumstances that leads to the filing of a unit clarification petition must be a meaningful change in an employee’s duties, responsibilities, or working conditions.  University of Washington, Decision 10496-A (PSRA, 2011), citing City of Richland, Decision 279-A (PECB, 1978).  A mere change in job titles is not necessarily a material change in working conditions that would qualify under Chapter 391‑35 WAC to alter the composition of a bargaining unit through the unit clarification process.  University of Washington, Decision 10496-A.  Other types of changes to the workplace environment, such as a reorganization of an employer’s workforce, are occurrences that could warrant the filing of a unit clarification petition.  See Lewis County, Decision 6750 (PECB, 1999).  Absent a recent change in circumstances, a unit clarification petition will be dismissed as untimely.  See University of Washington, Decision 11590 (PSRA, 2012), aff’d, Decision 11590-A (PSRA, 2013).

 

WAC 391-35-020 only states that a unit clarification petition must be filed within a reasonable period of time following a change in circumstances and does not set forth a particular time frame in which the change must have occurred.  University of Washington, Decision 11590.  Timeliness is determined by the factual circumstances of each particular case.  Reorganizations and reassignments of duties are events that do not occur overnight, and some deference must be granted to allow an employer to make midstream changes to any reorganization that might be occurring.  King County, Decision 11828 (PECB, 2013), aff’d, Decision 11828-A (PECB, 2013).  The defining event is a material change to duties or working conditions that necessitates the employer’s review and possible reallocation of the affected employees or positions.

 

If a unit clarification petition is timely, then the Commission moves to the merits of the petition and determines if the petitioned-for clarification is appropriate.  To assess the propriety of the unit, the Commission considers “the duties, skills, and working conditions of the public employees; the history of collective bargaining by the public employees and their bargaining representatives; the extent of organization among the public employees; and the desire of the public employees.”  RCW 41.56.060(1).^[2]  The criteria are not applied on a strictly mathematical basis.  Not all of the factors will arise in every case, and where they do exist, any one factor could be more important than another, depending on the facts.  City of Tacoma, Decision 12181 (PECB, 2014), citing King County, Decision 5910-A (PECB, 1997); Renton School District, Decision 379-A (EDUC, 1978), aff’d, Renton Education Association v. Public Employment Relations Commission, 101 Wn.2d 435 (1984).

 

Application of Standards

Timeliness

The WSCCCE’s petition is timely.  From 2013 to 2016 the employer transformed the identity, purpose, philosophy, and programming of the Detention Alternatives Program.  The positions within the program, including the JCCO Supervisor, changed as a result.  The JCCO Supervisor’s interactions with employees in Juvenile Probation Services increased, while his interactions with employees in Juvenile Detention Services decreased.  In the wake of the gradual evolution of the Detention Alternatives program (and the contemporaneous changes in the working conditions of the JCCO Supervisor), the program was moved to Juvenile Probation Services. 

 

The changes in the working conditions of the JCCO Supervisor, including the position’s reporting structure, are material.  See King County, Decision 11828 (petition was timely where a reorganization changed employees’ duties and responsibilities, not merely a reporting structure); see also Pierce County, Decision 9268 (PECB, 2006) (where reorganization only changed employer’s organizational structure, change was nonetheless “material” for timeliness analysis).  The November 2015 administrative reorganization in this case is an appropriate event to benchmark the timeliness of a unit clarification petition.  Reorganizations do not occur overnight, and the WSCCCE filed its petition within a reasonable period of time following the reorganization.  See Clark County, Decision 12271 (PECB, 2015), aff’d, Decision 12271‑A (PECB, 2015).  Given the size of the employer’s operation and the amount of time the employer needed for implementation of the reorganization, the petition is timely.  See Central Washington University, Decision 12289 (PSRA, 2015).

 

Community of Interest

Having determined that the WSCCCE’s petition is timely, the next question is whether the reorganizational changes sufficiently altered the JCCO Supervisor’s community of interest warranting revision of the existing bargaining units.  The JCCO Supervisor no longer shares a community of interest with the Association’s bargaining unit.  The JCCO Supervisor now shares a community of interest with the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit and would appropriately be included in that unit. 

 

The extent of organization within the employer’s workforce demonstrates that the JCCO Supervisor no longer shares a community of interest with the Association’s bargaining unit.  Concerns about “extent of organization” and fragmentation generally relate to the number and complexity of contracts to be negotiated and administered within an employer’s workforce.  The Commission has a long‑standing policy of avoiding unnecessary fragmentation of the workplace into multiple bargaining units.  King County, Decision 5910-A.  When applying the “extent of organization” factor, the Commission looks for a logical unit configuration—for example, an “all employees” unit, a “vertical” unit, or a “horizontal” unit.

 

When the Association’s bargaining unit was created, the employees in the unit shared a common line of supervision.  Similarly, when the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit was created, the employees in that unit shared a common line of supervision.  When the JCCO Supervisor was moved into Juvenile Probation Services under the supervision of Irons, the previous community of supervision ceased to exist.  Leaving the JCCO Supervisor in the Association’s unit with the JCO Supervisors would require Irons to deal with two separate bargaining relationships for the supervisors in his small department.  See, e.g., Thurston County, Decision 2574 (PECB, 1986) (denying severance petition and observing, “[T]he proposed unit is difficult to describe along clear, understandable lines. . . . [C]reation of the proposed unit would force the employer to administer two different bargaining relationships within [a single] department . . . .”).

 

The new duties and working conditions of the JCCO Supervisor also demonstrate that the position no longer shares a community of interest with the Association’s bargaining unit.  The JCO Supervisors have their own distinct mission: to keep juvenile offenders safe and secure within the secure detention facility.  At one time, the JCCO Supervisor shared this mission with the JCO Supervisors, because the employer considered the mission of community corrections as part of the detention operation and the employer placed the JCO Supervisors and JCCO Supervisor in the same organizational area of its workforce.  After the employer rebranded the Detention Alternatives program and shifted its focus to rehabilitating juveniles as opposed to detaining them, the JCCO Supervisor ceased to share a community of interest with the Association’s bargaining unit.  Malcolm testified that he now has little to no interaction with the JCO Supervisors.  He also testified that aside from checking a file cabinet in the secure detention facility once every two weeks, if at all, he does not have any regular contact with employees in Juvenile Detention Services.  He no longer works in the same physical location as the JCO Supervisors, does not interact with or fill in for JCO Supervisors, and does not attend regular meetings with JCO Supervisors. 

 

The JCCO Supervisor is currently in the Association’s unit, so the “history of bargaining” for the position in other situations would arguably weigh in favor of maintaining the existing community of interest.  However, the Association’s bargaining unit as currently configured has only been in existence since 2015, and the Association and the employer had not completed negotiations for a first collective bargaining agreement at the time of the hearing.  Thus, considering the length of the bargaining relationship, this brief history of bargaining carries little to no weight in establishing that the JCCO Supervisor position maintains a community of interest with the Association’s bargaining unit.  This is particularly true given that circumstances have changed in the short time since the unit’s creation.  See, e.g., Grant County, Decision 6704 (PECB, 1999) (explaining that although the historical unit configuration made sense at the time it was created, it “no longer made any practical or legal sense” following changed circumstances); Lewis County, Decision 6750 (“[H]istory can be nullified by intervening events.”).

 

These facts, taken as a whole, demonstrate that the community of interest between the JCCO Supervisor and the rest of the Association’s bargaining unit has been broken by the recent change in circumstances.  Having determined that the JCCO Supervisor now lacks a community of interest with the Association’s bargaining unit, the next question is whether the position shares a community of interest with the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit. 

 

Organizationally, the JCCO Supervisor shares a community of interest with the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit because including that position in the unit would maintain the “vertical” nature of the unit.  See Lewis County, Decision 6750 (clarifying unit following reorganization to maintain vertical structure of bargaining units).  Clarifying the units to move the JCCO Supervisor from the Association’s unit to the WSCCCE’s unit would not lead to any additional fragmentation, and granting the WSCCCE’s petition would not change the number of contracts which the employer needs to deal with.  Indeed, granting the petition would likely reduce the complexity of bargaining because all of the supervisors involved in community‑based corrections would be in one unit, and all of the supervisors involved in detention‑based corrections would be in another unit. 

 

The JCCO Supervisor’s duties and mission also align functionally with those of the JPC Supervisors because both job classes now focus on non-detention corrections.  Employees in the Detention Alternatives program and the Juvenile Probation Counselors are all involved in helping youths succeed in the community—in school, at home, or at work.  No other employees in the employer’s workforce perform duties revolving around this mission.  The common mission of these employees demonstrates that the JCCO Supervisor only shares a community of interest with the JPC Supervisors in the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit.  City of Kent, Decision 11996 (PECB, 2014) (“To parse employees by the specific subject matter of their work when the employees share a common mission would lead to excessive fragmentation of the workforce.”); Cowlitz County, Decision 12115 (PECB, 2014) (explaining that because the positions at issue shared similar purposes, goals, and objectives, they also shared a community of interest). 

 

The JCCO Supervisor and JPC Supervisors also share common supervision and report to Irons, the program manager in Juvenile Probation Services.  The JCO Supervisors in the Association’s bargaining unit do not report to Irons; instead, they all report to the program manager in Residential Custody, David Oster.  This factor weighs in favor of a community of interest between the JCCO Supervisor and the JPC Supervisors in the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit.  See Kitsap County, Decision 12182 (PECB, 2014) (commonality of supervision may be an indication of community of interest).  Malcolm testified that he regularly interacts with the employees in Juvenile Probation Services and attends meetings with JPC Supervisors, including a bimonthly probation supervisors meeting.  These factors also demonstrate that the JCCO Supervisor only shares a community of interest with the employees in the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit. 

 

The JCCO Supervisor is overtime eligible under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The JCO Supervisors and the Kitchen Coordinator in the Association’s bargaining unit are also FLSA‑overtime eligible.  The JPC Supervisors and other employees in the WSCCCE’s unit are FLSA‑overtime exempt.  The employer argues that the community of interest between the JCCO Supervisor and the employees currently in the Association’s unit is based on their FLSA overtime-eligible status.  The employer points out that the JCCO Supervisor’s FLSA status has not changed and argues that the WSCCCE’s petition must therefore be denied. 

 

It is true that FLSA status was a significant factor in the earlier unit determination decision placing the JCCO Supervisor in the Association’s unit.  Snohomish County, Decision 12071.  RCW 41.56.060 does not require that all employees in a bargaining unit be identically situated but only that they share a “common essence.”  Pierce County, Decision 8892 (PECB, 2005), aff’d, Decision 8892-A (PECB, 2005); see also South Central School District, Decision 5670-A (PECB, 1997).  Requiring employees to have identical duties, skills, and working conditions in order to be in the same unit would be contrary to the policy of avoiding “fragmentation of public employer workforces resulting in a proliferation of multiple bargaining structures and conflicting work jurisdiction claims.”  Coupeville School District, Decision 7652 (PECB, 2002).  There have nevertheless been significant changes to the JCCO Supervisor’s duties, skills, and working conditions that, taken as a whole, demonstrate how the existing community of interest has changed.  The JCCO Supervisor now shares a community of interest with the JPC Supervisors even though the JCCO Supervisor’s FLSA status has not changed.  See City of Blaine, Decision 6122 (PECB, 1997), aff’d, Decision 6122-A (PECB, 1998) (FLSA-exempt status did not override other factors establishing community of interest).

 

CONCLUSION

 

The JCCO Supervisor shares common supervision, common skills, and interacts frequently with members of the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit, in addition to sharing non-detention corrections duties with members of that bargaining unit.  Although the Association has FLSA status and some history of bargaining in its favor, the overall weight of the statutory factors demonstrates that the JCCO Supervisor shares a community of interest with employees in the WSCCCE’s unit.  See Chelan Public Hospital District 2, Decision 11395 (PECB, 2012) (“No one factor predominates and not all statutory factors must be considered in every case.  Rather, the factors are collectively applied to discern sufficient similarities or a ‘community of interest’ among the employees so that they will be able to bargain effectively with their employer.”).  The Association’s bargaining unit will be clarified to no longer include the JCCO Supervisor, and the WSCCCE’s bargaining unit will be clarified to include the JCCO Supervisor.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

 

1.                  Snohomish County is a public employer within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(12).

 

2.                  The Washington State Council of County and City Employees (WSCCCE) is a bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(2).

 

3.                  Snohomish County Juvenile Court Supervisors Association (Association) is a bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(2).

 

4.                  The WSCCCE’s bargaining unit includes the Court Services Supervisor, Health Services Director, Drug Treatment Court Supervisor, and two Juvenile Probation Counselor Supervisors (JPC Supervisors). 

 

5.                  The Association’s bargaining unit is solely detention focused and currently includes the Juvenile Community Corrections Supervisor (JCCO Supervisor), one employee in the Kitchen Coordinator job class, and five employees in the Juvenile Corrections Officer Supervisor (JCO Supervisor) job class. 

 

6.                  The Denney Juvenile Justice Center is part of the Snohomish County Superior Court.  Juvenile Detention Services and Juvenile Probation Services are two departments within the justice center.  Until November 2015 the Detention Alternatives program was administered by Juvenile Detention Services. 

 

7.                  In 2013 Snohomish County became a site for the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI).  The JDAI is a national movement focusing on reducing the use of secure detention for juveniles.  From 2013 to 2016 the employer shifted the focus of the Detention Alternatives program.  The program began to place greater emphasis on getting juvenile offenders in school or helping them get jobs for long-term success in the community and minimizing the use of secure detention.  Since the transition, when youths are having trouble with Detention Alternatives programs, Juvenile Community Corrections Officers work with the youths’ parents and schools to address the youths’ issues and get them back on track, rather than detain them as would have been done previously.

 

8.                  In November 2015 the employer moved the Detention Alternatives program from Juvenile Detention Services to Juvenile Probation Services.  The program was renamed Youth Enrichment Services to recognize the change in the program’s focus that had occurred since 2013.  A May 2016 newsletter announcing the name change also stated that the program “ha[d] become community based and no longer focused on detainment.”

 

9.                  The JCCO Supervisor is the head of the Detention Alternatives program.  James Malcolm is the current incumbent of the JCCO Supervisor position.

 

10.              Until November 2015 the JCCO Supervisor reported to the program manager in Juvenile Detention Services.  The JCCO Supervisor worked in the secure detention facility with the JCO Supervisors and regularly interacted with them.   When the Detention Alternatives program was moved from Juvenile Detention Services to Juvenile Probation Services, the JCCO Supervisor began reporting to the program manager in Juvenile Probation Services, Mike Irons.   The JCCO Supervisor position was also moved to an area outside the secure detention facility. 

 

11.              After the reorganization, the JCCO Supervisor began to have daily interaction and attend meetings with the Juvenile Probation Services program manager.  The JCCO Supervisor also began to have increasing daily contact with Juvenile Probation Counselors to discuss the youths in Detention Alternatives programs.  The JCCO Supervisor attends meetings with the JPC Supervisors twice a month and also attends management meetings with supervisors and leads from Juvenile Probation Services every other week. 

 

12.              The JCCO Supervisor no longer attends any meetings with the JCO Supervisors or employees in Juvenile Detention Services.  The JCCO Supervisor attends Detention Risk Assessment Instrument committee meetings which include employees from all departments of the Snohomish County Superior Court. 

 

13.              Prior to 2015 the JCCO Supervisor could fill in for Juvenile Corrections Officers and JCO Supervisors in Residential Custody.  Since Malcolm became the JCCO Supervisor, he has not filled in for a Juvenile Corrections Officer or a JCO Supervisor.  No Juvenile Corrections Officer or JCO Supervisor has filled in for him. 

 

14.              The WSCCCE filed its unit clarification petition on April 21, 2016.

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 

1.                  The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter under Chapter 41.56 RCW and Chapter 391-35 WAC.

 

2.                  Based upon Findings of Fact 8 through 14, the WSCCCE’s unit clarification petition is timely under WAC 391-35-020.

 

3.                  Based upon Findings of Fact 6 through 13, the JCCO Supervisor described in Finding of Fact 9 no longer shares a community of interest with the bargaining unit represented by the Association, described in Finding of Fact 5. 

 

4.                  Based upon Findings of Fact 6 through 13, the JCCO Supervisor described in Finding of Fact 9 now shares a community of interest with the bargaining unit represented by the WSCCCE, described in Finding of Fact 4. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                  The bargaining unit represented by the Snohomish County Juvenile Court Supervisors Association is modified to remove the employee in the Juvenile Community Corrections Officer Supervisor position.

 

2.                  The bargaining unit represented by the Washington State Council of County and City Employees is modified to include the employee in the Juvenile Community Corrections Officer Supervisor position.

 

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  27th  day of January, 2017.

 

 

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

 

 

 

MICHAEL P. SELLARS, Executive Director

 

 

This order will be the final order of the

agency unless a notice of appeal is filed

with the Commission under WAC 391-35-210.