DECISIONS

State – Corrections (Teamsters Local 117), Decision 12657 (PSRA, 2017)

                                                       STATE OF WASHINGTON

                  BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

On November 21, 2016, Joschue Reyes (complainant) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming Teamsters Local 117 (union) as respondent.  The public employer, the Washington State Department of Corrections, is not a party to this case.  The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,^[1] and a deficiency notice issued on December 21, 2016, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time.  The complainant was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint, or face dismissal of the case. On January 9, 2017, the complainant requested an extension to file an amended complaint.  I granted the complainant a one week extension to file an amended complaint, making the due date January 18, 2017.

No further information has been filed by the complainant.  The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

The allegations of the complaint concern:

Union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(2)(a), by breaching its duty of fair representation and failing to conduct a ratification vote of the union’s general membership concerning the employer’s proposal for a 2017-2019 collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Union interference with employee rights in violation of 41.80.110(2)(a), by violating the union’s constitution and bylaws and failing to conduct a ratification vote of the union’s general membership concerning the employer’s proposal for a 2017-2019 CBA.

The allegations of the complaint appear to deal exclusively with internal union matters, which fall outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.  The complaint is being dismissed for failure to state a cause of action for further case processing.

Contract Ratification

The complainant, Reyes, is a bargaining unit corrections officer.  The complaint seeks to challenge the union negotiating committee’s decision to reject the employer’s proposal for a 2017-2019 CBA, without a vote of the union’s general membership.  The complainant argues that the union’s general membership should have had an opportunity to review and vote on the employer’s last, best, final contract offer in August 2016.  The complainant argues that a ratification vote by union members should have occurred before union leadership decided to reject the employer’s offer.  Upon rejection of the employer’s offer the union and employer entered into an agreement to utilize an interest arbitrator to set terms of the parties’ 2017-2019 CBA.

The complainant points out that in the past when the union negotiating team did not agree with a last, best, final offer made by the employer, the union would make a recommendation but still bring the offer to the membership for a ratification vote.  The complainant argues that this year was the first time ever that the entire affected membership did not have the opportunity to vote on a State of Washington Department of Corrections contract proposal while being represented by Teamsters Local 117.

Chapter 41.80 RCW regulates relationships between employers and employees, and regulates relationships between employers and the organizations representing their employees, but does very little in the arena of regulating the internal affairs of labor organizations.  Internal union voting procedure for assessing membership support of a contract agreement is governed by the union’s own constitution and bylaws.  How or if a union conducts a contract ratification vote is a matter of internal union affairs.  No statute compels employee ratification votes on tentative agreements reached by unions and employers in collective bargaining.  Western Washington University, Decision 8849-B (PSRA, 2006), citing Naches Valley School District, Decision 2516-A (EDUC, 1987).  Similarly, there are no requirements that a union present an employer’s last, best, final offer for a ratification vote before its general membership.

Although unions that acquire the statutory status of exclusive bargaining representative of public employees under Chapter 41.80 RCW have a statutory duty of fair representation toward the employees in the bargaining unit(s) they represent under that statute, unions are fundamentally private organizations.  The constitutions and bylaws of unions are the contracts among their members, controlling how their private organization is to be operated.  Because the Commission generally lacks jurisdiction over disputes concerning violations of union constitutions and bylaws, those claims must be adjudicated under procedures internal to those organizations or through the courts.  Lake Washington School District, Decision 6891 (PECB, 1999).

Case Law Cited in Complaint

The complainant cites various representation cases in paragraph 2 of the complaint.  These cases address agency administered elections on whether employees wish to be represented by a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining.  The election principals described in these cited representation cases are a separate and distinct issue from union administered voting on contract ratification.  The cases cited in paragraph 2 are not applicable to the facts described in the complaint.

CONCLUSION

Exclusive bargaining representatives do not have a legal obligation to bring contract proposals they receive from employers to their membership for a vote.  Unions have brood discretion to determine when and if they will have membership vote on the acceptance of contract proposals.  A contract ratification vote process for bargaining unit members is a matter of internal union affairs that is governed by the union’s own constitution and bylaws.  Disputes concerning violations of union constitutions and bylaws must be adjudicated under procedures internal to those organizations or through the courts.  Lake Washington School District, Decision 6891.

                                                                       ORDER

The complaint charging unfair labor practices in the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  6th  day of February, 2017.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

JESSICA J. BRADLEY, Unfair Labor Practice Manager

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.