DECISIONS

Decision Information

King County, Decision 10665 (PECB, 2010)

Collection DECISIONS
Date 02/01/2010
Case Number 22854-E-09
Decision Maker Executive Director
Case Type Certification
Additional Information By Election, 3 Eligible Voters
Statute PECB - RCW 41.56

Decision Content

                                                       STATE OF WASHINGTON

 

                  BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

 

 

In the matter of the petition of:

 

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 17

 

Involving certain employees of:

 

KING COUNTY

 

 

CASE 22854-E-09-3513

 

DECISION 10665 - PECB

 

 

CERTIFICATION

Representation Election

by Agreement of Parties

 

 

 

Jacob Metzger, Union Representative, for the petitioner.

 

Robert S. Railton, Labor Negotiator, for the employer.

 

 

                                                            FINDINGS OF FACT

 

1.         The International Association of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 17 (IFPTE)  filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission a petition for investi­gation of a question concerning representation for the classifications of Project Manager II, Communication Specialist III and Communication Specialist IV in the Deputy Director’s Office of King County.  The petition was timely filed and was accompanied by a showing of interest which was administratively determined by the Commission to be sufficient.

 

2.         The existing bargaining unit represented by IFPTE is described as:

 

All full-time and regular part-time, probationary and term-limited employees of King County Planning Unit in the following classifications: Transportation Planner I, II, III, IV, Communications Specialist I, II, III, IV, Grant Specialist, Grant Analyst, Grant Administrator, Grant Supervisor and Lead Photographer, excluding supervisors, confidential employees and all other employees.

 

3.         All proceedings were conducted under the supervision of the Commission in a manner designed to afford the affected employees a free choice in the selection of whether they wished to be represented by IFPTE in its existing bargaining unit.  A secret ballot election has been conducted by Commission staff and a tally of the results previously furnished to the parties is attached hereto; and no meritorious objections have been filed with respect to these proceedings.

 

 

4.         Because the majority of the petitioned-for employees were not in favor of being represented by IFPTE, the bargaining unit shall remain as described in paragraph 2 of the foregoing Findings of Fact and the classifications of Project Manager II, Communication Specialist III and Communication Specialist IV in the Deputy Director’s Office of King County will not be included in the existing bargaining unit.

 

 

                                             CONCLUSION OF LAW

 

The unit described in paragraph 2 of the foregoing Findings of Fact is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of RCW 41.56.060.

 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

 

                                                                    CERTIFIED

 

The classifications of Project Manager II, Communication Specialist III and Communication Specialist IV in the Deputy Director’s Office of King County have chosen:

 

 

NO REPRESENTATION

 

 

as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with their employer.

 

 

Issued at Olympia, Washington, this 1st day of February, 2010.

 

 

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

 

 

 

CATHLEEN CALLAHAN, Executive Director

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.