Kitsap Fire District 1 & 15 (IAFF, Local 2819), Decision 7826 (PECB, 2002)
|
STATE OF WASHINGTON BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION |
|
|
CENTRAL KITSAP FIRE & RESCUE (KITSAP FIRE DISTRICT 1 & 15), |
|
|
Employer |
. |
|
MICHAEL LEEMSTRA, |
CASE 16361-U-02-4202 |
|
Complainant, |
DECISION 7826 – PECB |
|
vs. |
|
|
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2819, |
|
|
Respondent. |
ORDER OF DISMISSAL |
The complaint charging unfair labor practices in the above-referenced matter was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission by Michael Leemstra (Leemstra) on April 15, 2002.Leemstra is employed by Kitsap Fire District 1 & 15 (employer).The complaint alleged that International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2819 (union) interfered with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1) and committed other unspecified unfair labor practices, by failing to file a grievance for Leemstra concerning his discharge on or about September 1, 2000.
The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110.[1]A deficiency notice was issued on June 18, 2002, indicating that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time. The deficiency notice stated that the Commission is bound by the following provisions of Chapter 41.56 RCW:
RCW 41.56.160COMMISSION TO PREVENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND ISSUE REMEDIAL ORDERS AND CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS.(1) The commission is empowered and directed to prevent any unfair labor practice and to issue appropriate remedial orders: PROVIDED, That a complaint shall not be processed for any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months before the filing of the complaint with the commission. . . .
The deficiency notice indicated that in order for the complaint to be timely under RCW 41.56.160, the complaint must contain allegations of union misconduct occurring on or after October 15, 2001.
The Public Employment Relations Commission does not assert jurisdiction over “breach of duty of fair representation” claims arising exclusively out of the processing of contractual grievances. Mukilteo School District (Public School Employees of Washington), Decision 1381 (PECB, 1982).While a union does owe a duty of fair representation to bargaining unit employees with respect to the processing of grievances, such claims must be pursued before a court which can assert jurisdiction to determine (and remedy, if appropriate) any underlying contract violation.
The deficiency notice advised Leemstra 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 Leemstra that in the absence of a timely amendment stating a cause of action, the complaint would be dismissed. Nothing further has been received from Leemstra.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
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 3rd day of September, 2002.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
[SIGNED]
MARK S. DOWNING, Director of Administration
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.
[1] At this stage of the proceedings, all of the facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true and provable. The question at hand is whether, as a matter of law, the complaint states a claim for relief available through unfair labor practice proceedings before the Public Employment Relations Commission.