King County Library System, Decision 10224-A (PECB, 2009)

Audrie B. Eide, General Counsel, for the union.

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, by Henry E. Farber, Attorney at Law, and Maria Abramova, Attorney at Law, for the employer.

This case comes before the Commission on a timely appeal filed by the Washington State Council of County and City Employees, AFSCME, Council 2 (union or parent organization) seeking review and reversal of an Order issued by Executive Director Cathleen Callahan that dismisses the union petition to merge three bargaining units.[1] The King County Library System (employer) supports the Executive Director’s decision.

The union’s representation petition sought to merge three different bargaining units. Two of the bargaining units were represented by different local unions of the parent organization, and negotiated a separate collective bargaining agreement with the employer.[2] The third bargaining unit was recently organized by the parent organization and was not currently assigned to a specific local.[3] Representation Coordinator Sally Iverson issued a show cause letter questioning the appropriateness of the petition because it appeared that the union was seeking to merge local unions, and not individ­ual bargaining units within the same local. She also noted that the merger of local unions is an internal union matter over which this Commission has no jurisdiction.

The union responded by stating that it intended to merge three bargaining units into one local, and included a letter sent to employees in all three bargaining units explaining the union’s intent to create a single bargaining unit comprised of all employees from the three bargaining units. The employer questioned the appropriateness of the petition, arguing that WAC 391-35-030 prevents the filing of a representation petition during both the contract bar and certification bar periods.[4]

The Executive Director dismissed the union’s petition, noting that the signatory parties to two of the supplied collective bargaining agreements were the employer and the specific local unions. Accordingly, she found that for purposes of the representation proceeding before this agency, the two local unions, Local 1652-LM and Local 1857, were the exclusive bargaining representatives of their respective bargaining units. Relying upon Commission precedents, she then held that because no evidence existed within the record demonstrating that the employees had decided to relinquish the status of the independent locals as the exclusive bargaining representative of their respective bargaining units, this Commission could not conduct an election to merge bargaining units until the status of the local unions was addressed.

Appellate Review is Limited to Existing Record

With its brief on appeal, the union attempts to introduce new evidence demonstrating that it has taken steps internally to merge the local unions into a single local. This Commission consistently has ruled that it will not accept new evidence as part of its appellate review process, and the union presents no compelling reason as to why this information could not have been presented to the Executive Director while processing of this case was still before her. Snohomish County Fire District 4, Decision 8816-A (PECB, 2005); Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Decision 2358-A (PECB, 1986). Accordingly, our review is limited to the evidence that was before the Executive Director.

Executive Director Correctly Applied Precedent

With respect to the Executive Director’s legal analysis and conclusions, we have reviewed the pertinent precedents and find no reason to reverse those precedents or set aside the Executive Director’s decision. The case law is clear and unambiguous: bargaining rights may be transferred by means of internal union affairs transactions in which "due process" and "continuity" concerns are satisfied. Skagit Valley Hospital, Decision 2509‑A (PECB, 1987). This Commission will entertain a petition attempting to merge two or more bargaining units that were previously represented by two or more different local unions only where evidence is presented demonstrating those due process and continu­ity rights have been satisfied. See, e.g., State ‑ Home Care Quality Authority, Decision 8241 (PECB, 2003)(holding that the petitioning local satisfied "due process" concerns by providing documentation of a ratification vote among all bargaining unit employees which showed a majority of the employees were in favor of the transfer). Once it can be established that employees have decided to abandon their specific local unions in favor a single local union through a process that protected the individual employees’ due process rights, the Executive Director may entertain a petition to merge the bargaining units.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

The Order of Dismissal issued by Executive Director Cathleen Callahan in the above-entitled case is AFFIRMED and adopted as the Order of Dismissal of the Commission.

Issued at Olympia, Washington, the 10^th day of June, 2009.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARILYN GLENN SAYAN, Chairperson

[SIGNED]

PAMELA G. BRADBURN, Commissioner

[SIGNED]

THOMAS W. McLANE, Commissioner