City of Richland, Decision 7395 (PECB, 2001)

The complaints charging unfair labor practices in the above-referenced matters were filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission by IAFF, Local 1052 (union) on February 13, 2001.The complaints alleged that the City of Richland (employer) interfered with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), and refused to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4), by breach of its good faith bargaining obligations in presenting an initial contract proposal demonstrating an intention to frustrate or avoid reaching an agreement by seeking waiver of statutory rights and a 25% reduction in compensation without any meaningful justification or reasons, by its threats to make unilateral changes in the technical rescue team, a disciplinary matrix and employee code of conduct without providing an opportunity for bargaining, and by its reorganization including the assignment of Keith Ramsay to a new fire inspector/education specialist position without providing an opportunity for bargaining. Case 15717-U-01-3982 concerns a fire fighter bargaining unit. Case 15718-U-01-3983 involves identical allegations concerning a battalion chief unit.

The complaints were reviewed und­er WAC 391-45-110.[1]A deficiency notice was issued on April 18, 2001, indicating that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time for the allegations concerning the employer’s actions in relation to the reorganization. In METRO, Decision 2845-A (PECB, 1988), the Commission stated:

METRO retains its management prerogatives, including the right to plan for its own re-organization, but must simply bargain first on matters such as transfer of bargaining unit work and the effects of re‑organization.

The deficiency notice stated that the complaints lacked sufficient facts to suggest that the employer could have been obligated to bargain its reorganization decision. A public employer may reorganize the manner in which it chooses to provide services to the public, including the creation and elimination of positions, and changes in duties for existing positions. However, the employer must negotiate any effects of a reorganization, including the wage level of new and changed positions, with the exclusive bargaining representative of affected employees.

The deficiency notice indicated that the interference and refusal to bargain allegations of the complaints under RCW 41.56.140(1) ­and (4) concerning the employer’s initial contract proposal and threatened unilateral changes in working conditions appeared to state a cause of action, and would be assigned to an examiner for further proceedings under Chapter 391-45 WAC after the union had an opportunity to respond to the deficiency notice.

The deficiency notice advised the union that an amended complaint could be filed and served within 21 days following such notice, and that any materials filed as an amended complaint would be reviewed under WAC 391-45-110 to determine if they stated a cause of action. The deficiency notice further advised the union that in the absence of a timely amendment stating a cause of action, the allegations concerning the employer’s actions in relation to the reorganization would be dismissed.

On May 7, 2001, the union filed amended complaints emphasizing the employer’s bargaining obligations with the union concerning the impacts and effects of the reorganization, especially in relation to the assignment of Keith Ramsay to a new fire inspector/education specialist position. The union has cured the problems indicated in the deficiency notice concerning the employer’s bargaining obligations in relation to the reorganization.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

1.                  Assuming all of the facts alleged to be true and provable, the interference and refusal to bargain allegations of the amended complaints state a cause of action, summarized as follows:

Employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4), by breach of its good faith bargaining obliga­tions in presenting an initial contract pro­posal demonstrating an intention to frustrate or avoid reaching an agreement by seeking waiver of statutory rights and a 25% reduction in compensation without any meaningful justi­fication or reasons, by its threats to make unilateral changes in the technical rescue team, a disciplinary matrix and employee code of conduct without providing an opportunity for bargaining, and by its failure to bargain the effects of a reorganization including the assignment of Keith Ramsay to a new fire inspector/education specialist position.

The amended complaints will be the subject of further proceed­ings under Chapter 391-45 WAC.

2.                  The City of Richland shall:

File and serve its answer to the allegations listed in paragraph 1 of this Order, within 21 days fol­lowing the date of this Order.

An answer shall:

a.        Specifically admit, deny or explain each fact alleged in the amended complaints, except if a respondent states it is without knowledge of the fact, that statement will operate as a denial; and

b.        Assert any affirmative defenses that are claimed to exist in the matters.

The answer shall be filed with the Commission at its Olympia office. A copy of the answer shall be served on the attorney or principal representative of the person or organization that filed the amended complaints. Service shall be completed no later than the day of filing. Except for good cause shown, a failure to file an answer within the time specified, or the failure to file an answer to specifically deny or explain a fact alleged in the amended complaints, will be deemed to be an admission that the fact is true as alleged in the amended complaints, and as a waiver of a hearing as to the facts so admitted. See WAC 391‑45‑210.

3.                  The allegations of the amended complaints concerning failure to bargain the reorganization decision in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and (4) is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this14^th day of May, 2001.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARK S. DOWNING, Director of Administration

Paragraph 3 of this order will be the final order of the agency on any defective allegations, unless a notice of appeal is filed with the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.