King County, Decision 6696 (PECB, 1999

STATE OF WASHINGTON BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
In the matter of the petition of:
KING COUNTY	CASE 12987-C-97-815
For clarification of existing bargaining units represented by	DECI­SION 6696 - PECB
TEAMSTERS UNION, LOCAL 117
and	ORDER CLARIFYING BARGAINING UNIT
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 587

Jim Johnson, Negotiator, and Kerry Delaney, Labor Relations Analyst, appeared on behalf of King County.

Spencer Nathan Thal, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Teamsters Union, Local 117.

Frank and Rosen, by Clifford Freed, Attorney at Law, and Martin Garfinkel, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of intervenor Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587.

On February 21, 1997, King County (employer) and Teamsters Union, Local 117 jointly filed a petition for clarification of an existing bargaining unit with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-35 WAC, seeking a ruling on the proper unit placement of certain computer operations positions. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587, was named as an organization having an interest in the proceedings, and it moved for intervention.

A hearing was held on September 23, 1997, in Kirkland, Washington, before Hearing Officer Katrina I. Boedecker. In October 1997, ATU Local 587 requested a two-month extension of the deadline for filing briefs. Teamsters Local 117 filed a brief on November 4, 1997, but later requested that its status be changed from “co-petitioner” to “interested party”. On January 2, 1998, Teamsters Local 117 submitted a substitute brief. The employer filed its brief on January 16, 1998.After further extensions, ATU Local 587 filed its brief on July 15, 1998.[1]

On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing and the legal arguments filed, the Executive Director rules that the existing unit configuration is inappropriate, and the employees at issue are properly allocated to the bargaining unit of professional and technical employees represented by Teamsters Local 117.

BACKGROUND

Historical Situation at King County

King County (employer) is a political subdivision of the state of Washington, governed by an elected county council and an elected county executive. A King County Department of Information and Administrative Services (DIAS) now includes an Information and Telecommunications Services Division (ITS), which is responsible for computer operations.

Teamsters Local 117 is the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit which includes professional and technical employees in several King County departments.

From the evidence produced at the hearing, the bargaining relation­ship between the employer and Teamsters Local 117 had been in existence for about 17 years. Those parties have had a series of collective bargaining agreements covering the professional/ technical bargaining unit, the most recent of which at the time of the hearing was a contract for the period from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1998.At the time of the hearing, there were approximately 89 employees in that bargaining unit, of which 9 held “computer operator” or “computer shift supervisor” titles.

The METRO Merger

The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) was an independent municipal corporation with the same boundaries as King County. METRO operations were described in an earlier decision, as follows:

(1) Operation of a county-wide public passen­ger transportation system in King County, connecting with similar systems in neighboring Snoho­mish and Pierce counties; and (2) con­struction and operation of a [wholesale] sewage treat­ment system serving most or all of the local governments in the urbanized por­tions of King County.

King County, Decision 5910 (PECB, 1997).

METRO existed under Chapter 35.58 RCW. Its operations were directed by a council organized according to a “federation” structure, and composed of representatives from King County and various municipalities within King County.

ATU Local 587 was certified as exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit described as:

All full-time and regular part-time computer operators and data control specialists em­ployed by METRO at the Exchange Building in Seattle, Washington; excluding confidential employees, supervisors and all other employees of the employer.

METRO, Decision 2986-A (PECB, 1988).

At the time of that certification, there were approximately 9 employees in that bargaining unit.[2] METRO and ATU Local 587 negotiated collective bargaining agreements for that unit.

In Cunningham v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 751 F.Supp 885 (W.D. Wash. 1990) and 751 F.Supp 899 (W.D. Wash. 1990), the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled that the federation structure of the METRO Council was unconstitu­tional, as violative of equal protection principles under one-person-one-vote precedents. The court ordered that the method of selecting the METRO Council be revised.[3]

In 1992, the voters of King County approved a ballot proposition to merge METRO into the King County government. The ballot proposi­tion directed that 1994 and 1995 constitute a transition period during which METRO operations would continue (as a new King County Department of Metropolitan Services) while plans were made to absorb METRO’s functions into King County government. METRO thus ceased to exist on January 1, 1994, and all of its employees became employees of King County as of that date.[4]

The King County Council proceeded with planning an integration of former METRO operations and functions into the King County table of organization. The King County Council reorganized the departmental structure of King County by an ordinance which was effective January 1, 1996.[5]Thus, even the King County Department of Metropolitan Services ceased to exist, and the current table of organization went into effect, as of January 1, 1996.

Merger of Data Processing Functions

As a result of assuming the rights, powers, functions and obliga­tions of METRO under RCW 36.56.010, King County was faced with having two departments performing similar data processing func­tions. During the transition period, the employer decided to merge the two data processing divisions under one manager. Thus, the former METRO Information Services Division was eliminated, and ITS now addresses the data processing needs of the reorganized King County departmental structure.

In June of 1997, the employer implemented a reduction in staff which resulted in layoffs.[6]Four remaining computer operators transferred from METRO, as well as the equipment they operated, were physically moved from the Exchange Building to ITS offices in the Key Tower. All of the remaining computer operators now work side-by-side in that location, performing essentially the same duties and responsibilities under the same supervisors. All of them work a 40-hour work week.

There are some ongoing differences among these employees, some of which are necessitated by the employer's attempt to honor both collective bargaining agreements for the employees they histori­cally covered:

•                     The Teamsters Local 117 collective bargaining agreement permits the employer to schedule employees to work on rotating shifts, permits the employer to consider its assessment of employee skill and ability as a factor in layoff decisions, and does not provide employees an option to take compensatory time off in lieu of overtime; the ATU Local 587 collective bargaining agreement provides an option for compensatory time off and for sick leave and vacation accrual at higher rates, but does not permit the employer to schedule rotating shifts or to consider skill and ability as a factor in layoffs.

•                     King County computer operators were historically classified under titles of “computer operator I”, “computer operator II”, “computer operator III”, and “computer shift supervisor”; the former METRO computer operators were all in one “computer operator” classification.

•                     King County computer operators historically worked on an IBM computer; the former METRO computer operators worked on PRIME and DEC computers.

•                     The former METRO computer operators continue to deal with payroll, bus maintenance, employee qualification, and account­ing functions for former METRO operations, and they run some reports on DEC computers that remain at the Exchange Building.

Some of those differences were disappearing by the time of the hearing, however. The employer was making a significant effort to cross-train its computer operators on all the computer hardware at the worksite. Additionally, a classification/compensation study will allocate all of the computer operator positions to the same classification family.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The employer asks the Commission to place all of the ITS computer operators in one bargaining unit. It urges that all of those employees share a community of interest, and it particularly argues that to do otherwise would unnecessarily fragment its workforce and cause work jurisdiction disputes.

ATU Local 587 argues that this unit clarification petition must be dismissed. It contends the former METRO computer operators have maintained a separate identity and do not share a community of interest with the Teamster-represented computer operators. It also contends that a merger of existing bargaining units cannot be accomplished through a unit clarification proceeding, and that a question concerning representation is raised by these facts, so that it would be necessary for one of the unions to file a representation petition for a combined unit.[7]

Teamsters Local 117 states a belief that all of the computer operators should be included in one bargaining unit. It takes no position as to how the Commission should determine the appropriate­ bargain­ing representative for the computer operators, or as to which union should represent the computer operators.

DISCUSSION

Motion to Strike Brief of Teamsters Local 117

In its brief, ATU Local 587 moved to strike the brief substituted by Teamsters Local 117 after that organization withdrew as a co-petitioner in this case. ATU Local 587 argues that Teamsters Local 117 has lost legal standing to participate in this matter. That motion is denied.

The determination of appropriate bargaining units under the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, Chapter 41.56 RCW, is a function delegated by the Legislature to the Public Employment Relations Commission. RCW 41.56.060.Unit determination is not even a subject of bargaining between employers and unions in the conventional mandatory/permissive/illegal sense. City of Richland, Decision 279-A (PECB, 1978), affirmed 29 Wn.App. 599 (Division III, 1981), review denied 96 Wn.2d 1004 (1981).

WAC 391-35-020 specifically contemplates the processing of unit clarification petitions to resolve disputes of the type presented in this case, saying at (3): “Disputes concerning the allocation of employees or positions between two or more bargaining units may be filed at any time.” Even if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) might or would do things differently, that is not conclu­sive. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington has endorsed looking to NLRB and federal court precedents interpreting the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as a guide to interpreting similar provisions of Chapter 41.56 RCW,[8] but there are many differences between those statutes. Accordingly, the rules, practices and procedures of the Public Employment Relations Commission differ from those of the NLRB in a number of ways.

Under WAC 391-35-010, this proceeding could have been initiated by the employer or either of the unions, with or without the consent of the others. The listing of ATU Local 587 on the petition was required by WAC 391-35-050, which calls for:

(1) Information identifying the parties and their relationships, including:

…

(a) The name and address of the employer ...

(b) The name, address and affiliation, if any, of the exclusive representative, ...

(2) Identification of the issues of the proposed clarification, ...

(3) Identification of other interested organizations, including names and addresses of any other employee organizations claiming to represent any employees affected by the proposed clarification(s), and brief descrip­tion(s) of the contracts, if any, covering such employees.

[Emphasis by bold supplied.]

Information about Teamsters Local 117 would have been required in any petition filed by the employer alone, or by ATU Local 587 alone. Thus, the joint filing of the original petition merely moved the identification of Teamsters Local 117 from line (3) of the petition form to line (1) (b) on the petition form.

The employer has continued to press its case in this proceeding, first as co-petitioner and now as the sole petitioner. When Teamsters Local 117 changed its status from “co-petitioner” to “interested party”, it did not disclaim its interest concerning the computer operators it has historically represented. Teamsters Local 117 will be bound by the outcome of this proceeding, and has legal standing to participate as a party in this proceeding.

AFL-CIO Proceedings

The change of status requested by Teamsters Local 117 was appar­ently the result of an AFL-CIO ruling made under Article 20 of the AFL-CIO constitution. The simple answer to any query about the effect of AFL-CIO proceedings on this case is: “None.” The reasons for that answer are largely the same as the reasons for rejection of the claim that Teamsters Local 117 lacks standing: Just as agreements made by employers and unions on unit determination matters are not binding on the Commission in the exercise of its statutory authority, agreements between unions (including the AFL-CIO constitution) cannot bind the Commission. Both unions are parties to this proceeding because the employer has invoked the statutory authority of the Commission to resolve a dispute concerning:(1) The propriety of the existing bargaining units they represent; and/or (2)  the allocation of employees to the bargaining unit(s) they represent.[9]

The “Merger of Units” Claim

ATU Local 587 correctly argues that Commission precedent precludes the use of the unit clarification procedures of Chapter 391-35 WAC to effect a “merger” of appropriate bargaining units.Mount Vernon School District, Decision 1629 (PECB, 1983).If either of these unions represented two appropriate bargaining units at King County and sought to merge them, it would need to file and process a representation petition under Chapter 391-25 WAC. Similarly, if either of these unions was seeking to “raid” the other to obtain certification as exclusive bargaining representative of an appropriate bargaining unit encompassing employees historically included in two appropriate bargaining units, it would need to file and process a representation petition under Chapter 391-25 WAC. The key word in all of this is “appropriate”: The employer contends here that the existing bifurcation of its computer operators into two bargaining units is inappropriate; if the employer prevails in that argument, this case does not involve a merger of appropriate bargaining units.

The Statutory Unit Determination Criteria

The Legislature has established the criteria to be used by the Commission in determining appropriate bargaining units:

RCW 41.56.060 DETERMINATION OF BARGAIN­ING UNIT‑-BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE. The commission, ... shall decide ... the unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. In determining, modifying, or combining the bargaining unit, the commission shall consider the duties, skills, and working conditions of the public employees; the his­tory of collective bargaining by the public employees and their bargaining representa­tives; the extent of organization among the public employees; and the desire of the public employees. ...

[Emphasis by bold supplied.]

As noted in City of Pasco, Decision 2636-B (PECB, 1987), the purpose is to group together employees with sufficient similarities to have an ongoing community of interest in bargaining their wages, hours and working conditions with their employer. An important side effect of the unit determination process is that the descrip­tion of an appropriate bargaining unit outlines a body of unit work. The employer must then respect the work jurisdiction claims of that bargaining unit in its future decisions and actions.[10]

Duties, Skills and Working Conditions -

The first component of the criteria set forth in RCW 41.56.060 is of concern in virtually all unit determination cases, and is of the utmost influence in this case. The evidence demonstrates that all of the ITS computer operators now share one community of interest.

All of the computer operators, whether historically represented by Teamsters Local 117 or ATU Local 587, perform similar duties, utilizing common skills and abilities. They work side-by-side at the same location, under the same supervisory chain.

Given the employer's commitment to cross-training, and its steps to establish a single datacenter where all computer operators work on all of the equipment, it is already (and increasingly will be) impossible to maintain a workable borderline between two bargaining units. Even if there has been (or still is) some segregation of functions by reference to the brand of computer being operated, nothing has been shown which would prevent the employer from using the former-METRO computers for systems or programs supporting traditional King County functions, or from moving computer systems and programs related to the public transit or wastewater treatment operations to the IBM computer traditionally used by King County. The choice of computer hardware is too faint a distinction to segregate the work of two bargaining units for the future.

The primary interactions for all of the computer operators are with the other computer operators. Although the former-METRO computer operators interact with ATU-represented employees when trouble­shooting problems at transit bases and when working at the Exchange Building, those employees were not within the separate unit of computer operators certified in METRO, Decision 2986-A, supra. The interaction with other employees who happen to have chosen the same union is of little or no importance, as compared to interactions within a single bargaining unit.

History of Bargaining -

There is no question that the two groups of computer operators have separate histories of collective bargaining. That history cannot be considered in isolation of surrounding events, however. When a global view is taken which includes the context in which the separate bargaining units existed and the changes which have occurred, the Executive Director concludes that the history of bargaining is nullified, or at least substantially compromised.

The concept of nullifying a history of bargaining is not new. Separate histories of bargaining were not sufficient to preserve a historical unit configuration in South Kitsap School District, Decision 1541(PECB, 1983), once it was determined that an artificial division of an office-clerical workforce was destined to produce ongoing work jurisdiction disputes at the borderline between two units represented by two different organizations. The unit determination elections conducted by the Commission in “severance” and “merger of units” situations give the employees within a bargaining unit the opportunity to overrule their history of bargaining. See, Mukilteo School District, Decision 1008 (PECB, 1980); City of Marysville, Decision 4854 (PECB, 1994); Quincy School District, Decision 3962 (PECB, 1993), affirmed Decision 3962-A (PECB, 1994), 77 Wn.App. 741 (1995), review denied, 127 Wn.2d 1019 (1995).

Changes of the employer's table of organization have also been a basis to alter a bargaining unit configuration. In Cowlitz County, Decision 1652-A (PECB, 1983), a history of inclusion in one of two bargaining units represented by the same organization was not a sufficient basis to prevent a transfer of certain employees to the other of those units, after the employer restructured its table of organization. In City of Mount Vernon, Decision 4199-B (PECB, 1992), the Commission gave credence to the employer’s concerns about work jurisdiction disputes following a physical consolidation of operations, and further noted that to allow two separate bargaining units to co-exist and represent the same body of work would be “abhorrent to peaceful labor relations”, so that, “The history of bargaining in two separate units must be disregarded in the face of changed circumstances.” In Pasco School District, Decision 5016-A (PECB, 1995), affirmed, WPERR CD-855 (Thurston County Superior Court, 1997), affirmed, 92 Wn.App. 1019 (Division II, 1998), two employees historically included in separate bargaining units were allocated to the same bargaining unit after their assignments were changed so that they performed similar work. In City of Kent, Decision 6611 (PECB, 1999), a history of represen­tation by two different unions was nullified by an employer decision to re-group facilities maintenance employees under one supervisor, with notation that,  “That change of circumstances provides ... support for re-allocation of ... positions histori­cally represented by [one union to another].”[11]

In this case, it is clear that METRO has disappeared. Much as the former employees of METRO and ATU Local 587 might wish it were otherwise, the factual context for this case includes a federal court ruling that METRO was unconstitutional and a failure of state and/or local officials to alter the structure of METRO to preserve its existence as a separate entity. The voters then decreed that METRO should be merged into King County government. A unit structure which would have preserved the former METRO structure (and would arguably have frustrated the will of the voters and the reorganization plan developed by the King County Council) was rejected in King County, Decision 5910, supra. Similar consider­ations are applicable here. Due to the changed circum­stances, the history of bargaining at METRO is not controlling.

The Executive Director is not persuaded by an ATU Local 587 contention that the petition in this case is untimely, because the employer did not file the unit clarification petition until February of 1997.ATU Local 587 cites Ben Franklin Transit, Decision 5249 (PECB, 1995) for the proposition that parties should request accretions soon after the creation of new positions or changes of circumstances, “lest an independent history of bargain­ing develop that would preclude later accretion to a bargaining unit”, but the facts do not support identification of an independ­ent history of bargaining in this case. Although the demise of METRO (and even of the King County Department of Metropolitan Services) occurred earlier, the record indicates that the consoli­dation of computer operations functions into ITS did not occur until June of 1997, which was months after the petition was filed to initiate this proceeding. ATU Local 587 does not (and cannot) claim surprise that the employer desires that all of the computer operators should be in one bargaining unit. The parties spent months in settlement discussions while this case has been pending.

Extent of Organization -

The Commission is wary of very small bargaining units in large workforces. This caution is designed to avoid unnecessary fragmentation and the proliferation of jurisdictional disputes:

Concerns about “extent of organization” and fragmentation generally relate to the number and complexity of contracts to be negotiated and administered within an employer’s work­force. The Commission has a long-standing policy of avoiding unnecessary fragmentation of the workplace into multiple bargaining units. Ben Franklin Transit, Decision 2357-A (PECB, 1986); Municipality of Metropolit­an Seattle, Decision 2358-A (PECB, 1986).Very small units are discouraged, where the posi­tions can properly be fit into broader bar­gaining units. Unit structures which bifur­cate a workforce have been found inappropri­ate, where work jurisdiction conflicts are likely to arise on an on-going basis.

King County, Decision 5910-A (PECB, 1997) (emphasis by bold supplied, footnotes with citations omitted).

The evidence in that earlier case included that this employer maintains approximately 50 collective bargaining agreements with approximately 30 different unions.

ATU Local 587 envisions a separate bargaining unit limited to the computer operators, but that would run contrary to the Commission precedents interpreting the “extent of organization” component of the statutory unit determination criteria. The purpose of unit determination is not to separate out each group of employees who could have sufficient similarities to constitute a bargaining unit. Placing all of the computer operators in the existing “professional/technical” unit which has historically included the majority of the present employees avoids a further proliferation of units in an already-complex workforce.

ATU Local 587 would leave its existing bargaining unit in place, contending there is no reason to disrupt the group identity of the former METRO computer operators, because they have distinct work assisting their historical “customers”. That disregards the consolidation of functions planned (and already partly implemented) by the employer. The record shows that the general duties, skills and working conditions of all of the ITS computer operators are more similar to one another than they are distinguished by the historical or ongoing specific duties.

ATU Local 587 points to two extensions of the collective bargaining agreement covering the separate unit of former METRO computer operators as support for a claim that there would be no “stranding” problem if this case is dismissed, but that would turn the employer's evident respect for the “status quo” into a self-fulfilling prophesy. The employer appears to have done what the law requires, by putting this unit determination dispute before the Commission for a determination under the statutory criteria after change was thrust upon it by the federal court decision and the ballot proposition passed by the voters. It further appears that the employer sought to minimize disruptions, by honoring its existing bargaining relationships until this case was decided.[12]The Commission will not saddle the employer with an ongoing fragmentation of bargaining units just because it maintained labor peace during the pendency of this proceeding.

Desires of Employees -

ATU Local 587 cites testimony of former METRO computer operators concerning their desires, but the Commission has repeatedly held that testimony of employees is not an appropriate basis for assessing the desires of employees under RCW 41.56.060.Instead, the Commission's procedures protect the confidentiality of employee views on such sensitive matters by conducting secret ballot unit determination elections, when appropriate. City of Vancouver, Decision 6179 (PECB, 1998), citing Oak Harbor School District, Decision 1319 (PECB, 1981).The integrity of the ballot is of great concern to the Commission, and the unit determination election procedure affords all affected employees an equal voice on the unit determination issue, rather than placing reliance on the views of the limited few who may be called as witnesses or who may be more articulate or persuasive than others.

ATU Local 587 would have the Commission conduct a unit determina­tion election among the employees, but that procedure is not appropriate in this case. In City of Mount Vernon, Decision 4199-B, supra, the Commission repeated a long-standing principle that:

There is no occasion to conduct a unit deter­mination election to ascertain the desires of employees where one of the proposed choices would be an inappropri­ate unit.

While RCW 41.56.060 lists four factors to be considered in making unit determinations, the Legislature did not prioritize those factors and it certainly did not label the “desire of employees” as the primary or dominant factor. Puyallup School District, Decision 5053-A (PECB, 1995); Bremerton School District, Decision 527 (PECB, 1978).In Oak Harbor School District, supra, a conclusion that a separate unit would be an inappropriate fragmentation precluded reliance on the “desires of employees”. In this case, the similarities of duties, skills and working conditions, the historical context, and concerns about fragmentation all combine to require a ruling that a separate unit of computer operators would not be appropriate, so there is no basis to offer such a unit configuration to the employees.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  King County is a political subdivision of the state of Washington, and is a public employer under RCW 41.56.030(1), which has existing bargaining relationships for at least 50 separate bargaining units within its workforce.

2.                  The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) formerly existed as a separate municipal corporation under Chapter 35.58 RCW, and was a public employer under RCW 41.56.030(1).METRO ceased to exist as the result of a federal court ruling that its structure was unconstitutional. King County assumed all of the rights, obligations and functions of METRO, under the terms of a ballot proposition passed by King County voters in 1992.

3.                  Teamsters Union, Local 117, a bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3), is the exclusive bargaining representative of certain professional and technical employees of King County. That bargaining unit has historically included computer operators. The employer and Teamsters Local 117 were parties to a collective bargaining agreement which was to remain in effect through December 31, 1998.

4.                  Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587, a bargaining representa­tive within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3­), was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain computer operators employed by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO), and has continued to occupy that status following a transfer of those employees to King County. The employer and the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587 were parties to an extension of a collective bargaining agreement which expired on October 31, 1997.

5.                  As a result of the consolidation described in paragraph 2 of these Findings of Fact, King County found itself with two separate computer operations and computer operator workforces.

6.                  By an ordinance adopted effective on January 1, 1995 under the directive of the ballot measure passed by King County voters in 1992, the King County Council adopted a table of organiza­tion which eliminated the departmental structure of METRO and of the King County Department of Metropolitan Services which had replicated the METRO structure during a transition period provided for in the ballot measure. Among the changes described at and after that time were a consolidation of computer operations in an Information and Telecommunications Services Division (ITS) within a Department of Information and Administrative Services (DIAS).

7.                  On February 21, 1997, King County initiated this unit clarifi­cation proceeding, questioning the ongoing propriety of the allocation of its computer operations employees to two different bargaining units.

8.                  During or about June of 1997, King County effected a layoff and consolidation of its computer operations, including a physical move of remaining METRO computer operators and the equipment they operated to the same facility where other ITS computer operators were located, and the placing of all of its remaining computer operators under common supervision.

9.                  King County has proceeded with cross-training of its computer operators and with a classification and compensation study which assigns all of its computer operators to one job classification family.

10.              The duties performed and skills required by all of the computer operators historically allocated to separate bargain­ing units are now substantially the same. All of those employees regularly work together, and otherwise share a community of interests.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.                  The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter under Chapter 41.56 RCW and Chapter 391-35 WAC.

2.                  The Petition for Clarification of Existing Bargaining Unit in this matter was timely, under WAC 391-35-020, in relation to the layoff of employees from the computer operator classifica­tions and the consolidation of computer operations in the ITS worksite, and in relation to the existence of a dispute concerning the allocation of positions between the two bargaining units described in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the foregoing Findings of Fact.

3.                  The separate bargaining unit of computer operators certified by the Commission in METRO, Decision 2986-A (PECB, 1988) is no longer an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining under RCW 41.56.060, following the changes of circumstances associated with the federal court decision declaring the structure of METRO to be unconstitutional, the failure of state and/or local officials to modify the struc­ture of METRO to maintain it as a separate entity, the ballot measure adopted by King County voters, and the integration of former METRO operations and personnel into King County, all as described in paragraphs 2, 5, 6 and 8 of the foregoing Findings of Fact.

4.                  Based on the changes of circumstances, similarities of duties, skills and working conditions, and extent of organization described in paragraphs 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the foregoing Findings of Fact, the computer operators formerly employed by METRO and formerly included in the bargaining unit described in paragraph 4 of the foregoing Findings of Fact and paragraph 3 of these Conclusions of Law, are properly accreted under RCW 41.56.060, to the appropriate bargaining unit of King County professional and technical employees which, as described in paragraph 3 of the foregoing Findings of Fact, has histori­cally included computer operators.

ORDER CLARIFYING BARGAINING UNIT

1.                  The certification of Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587, as exclusive bargaining representative of a separate bargaining unit of computer operators employed by King County as the successor to METRO is VACATED.

2.                  The bargaining unit of professional and technical employees of King County historically represented by Teamsters Local 117, is clarified to include computer operators now within the ITS division of DIAS who were formerly employed by METRO.

Issued at Olympia, Washington, this28^th day of May, 1999.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATION COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARVIN L. SCHURKE, Executive Director

This order will be the final order of the agency unless a notice of appeal is filed with the Commission under WAC 391-35-210.