Community Transit, Decision 7355 (PECB, 2001)

On February 2, 2001, Dan Nagle filed a petition for investigation of a question concerning representation with the Commission, seeking to decertify the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), Local 1576 as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the Community Transit. The petition identified seven employees, and described the unit as facilities maintenance employees.

A routine letter was mailed to the employer requesting a list of employees. The employer’s response on February 20, 2001, indicated the petitioner sought decertification as to only a portion of a bargaining unit of approximately 300 employees. The employer also included a copy of a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and ATU, Local 1576 which was effective through March 31, 2000.

The petitioner was notified that its petition sought an inappropriate “severance-decertification” affecting only facilities maintenance employees who have historically been within a much larger bargaining unit.  The petitioner was given a period of ten days in which to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed.

The petitioner responded by letter filed March 27, 2001. The petitioner acknowledged that the facilities maintenance employees are one classification among a larger group of employees within Community Transit.  Although that letter also indicated the facilities maintenance employees were not seeking to be un-represented, and wanted the opportunity to choose another bargaining representative, no such organization has moved for intervention in this matter.

DISCUSSION

The petitioner recites a history of bargaining which indicates that the present facilities maintenance operation grew out of (and was originally staffed by a member of) the bargaining unit represented by the ATU. Newly-created positions related to an existing bargaining unit can lawfully be accreted to that unit. Assuming the facts set forth by the petitioner to be true, the history he set forth would provide basis for the ATU to claim jurisdiction over the facilities maintenance work.

The petitioner’s claim that the facilities maintenance employees have not been given an opportunity to vote separately on their representation addresses a right that has never been properly invoked. The petitioner marked the “decertification” box on the petition form filed in this matter, and the showing of interest filed in support of the petition only stated a desire to no longer be represented by the ATU.

If the facilities maintenance employees’ intent was to seek a change of representation to another union as a distinct and homogeneous group of “skilled maintenance” employees, the petition should have indicated a change of representation and the showing of interest should have shown support for a named union.

The Commission has rejected “severance-decertification” petitions in the past. In City of Seattle, Decision 2612 (PECB, 1987), where an employee sought to decertify only a select group of employees from a larger bargaining unit of employees, set forth a policy that is controlling in this matter. That decision included the following reasoning:

The distinction between “decertification” of an incumbent exclusive bargaining representative and “severance” of a part of the existing bargaining unit is well founded and clear. Proceedings in the “decertification” category are characterized by employees seeking to be rid of their present union, with the result that they end up with no union representation. By contrast, cases in the “severance” category involve a petition of one organization seeking to carve out a separate bargaining unit from a larger unit historically represented by the same or another organization. In both types of cases, the Commission must honor statutory directive that it consider the “history of bargaining”. RCW 41. 56. 060. A decertification petitioner does not have the prerogative to fashion a new bargaining unit or voting group, however. Rather, employees who seek to be rid of their union must take the existing unit as they find it and must move to decertify the context of the existing bargaining unit. Accordingly, petitions which, as here, simultaneously seek “severance” and “decertification” are precluded by controlling precedent of the Public Employment Relations Commission. See, City of Seattle, Decision 1229-A (PECB, 1982) [Commission affirmed Executive Director’s dismissal of “severance-decertification” petition seeking to remove some, but not all, of the employees from an existing bargaining unit of City of Seattle employees represented by Plumbers Local 32];Valley General Hospital, Decision 1333 (PECB, 1982) [Executive Director dismissed “severance-decertification” petition]. The Commission’s decisions on this subject are, in turn, based on precedents of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Campbell Soup Co. , 11 NLRB 234 (1055) [cited by Commission, with approval, as standing for the proposition that severance principles may not be applied to obtain decertification of part of an existing bargaining unit; Oakwood Tool & Engineering Co. , 122 NLRB 812 (1958); Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. , 209 NLRB 363 (1974).

A petition seeking a “severance-decertification” is void from the outset, and must be dismissed as such.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

The petition for investigation of a question concerning representation filed in the above matter is DISMISSED.

Issued at Olympia, Washington, this 17^th day of April, 2001.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARVIN L.  SCHURKE, Executive Director

This order may be the final order of the agency unless a notice of appeal is filed with the Commission under WAC 391-25-660.