Snohomish
County Transit, Decision 1547 (PECB, 1982)
Patricia
Lauterbach v. Snohomish County Public Transit
DECISION OF
COMMISSION
These
proceedings originated from a timely and properly supported petition for
investigation of a question concerning representation filed by certain
employees seeking decertification of Amalgamated Transit Union No. 1576 (union)
as exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit of
inspector/dispatchers employed by Snohomish County Public Transit Benefit Area
Corporation (employer). The parties
filed an election agreement in the matter and a representation election was
conducted by the commission staff. The
tally of ballots issued pursuant to WAC 391-25-550 indicates that of four
eligible voters, two voted in favor of representation by the union and two
voted for no representation.
This
decision by the Commission is in response to the request of the union that it
be allowed to withdraw its stipulation in the election agreement that the
number of employees in the bargaining unit is four (4), and to substitute its
claim that the number of employees in the bargaining unit is five (5). Further, the union requests that the election
results be set aside and that a new election be conducted with ballots being
made available to all five individuals claimed to be within the bargaining
unit. Finally, the union requests that
the Commission enter an order finding that
WAC 391-25-530(2), which provides:
"(2) Representation elections shall be decided by a
majority of those voting. Where there
are only two choices on the ballot, a tie vote shall result in a certification
of no representative.",
does not apply to decertification elections.
The union bases its request to withdraw from the
stipulation in the election agreement on a claim that the stipulation was a
mistake, inadvertently made by the union, and that the correct number of
bargaining unit employees is five, nor four.
The union maintains that the fifth employee, Leland Hull, was and is a
regular part-time employee in the inspector/dispatcher bargaining unit.
The employer opposes the motion to withdraw from the
stipulation, on the
grounds that:
(1) The fifth employee is not a regular part-time employee in the
bargaining unit, and (2) the election agreement is a correct binding
stipulation and should stand. The
employer further contends that WAC 391-25-,530(2) does apply to the present
decertification proceeding.
The petitioner, joined by another bargaining unit
employee, filed a letter in opposition to the union's motion. They aver that Hull is an intermittent
employee only in the inspector/dispatcher bargaining unit and that he is a
full-time bus driver employed by the employer in another bargaining unit
represented by the union. They support
the stipulations embodied in the election agreement and request a hearing if
the motion to withdraw the stipulation is granted.
The Commission finds no good reason to allow the union to
withdraw its stipulation at this late date.
Election agreements made under WAC 391-25-230 are enforced as binding
stipulations of the parties except. for good cause shown. See: WAC 391-08-450 and Community College
District No. 5, Decision 448 (CCOL, 1978); Issaquah School District,
Decision 775 (PECB, 1979); and Clover Park School District, Decision 905
(PECB, 1980). If the union believed that
Hull was or might have been an eligible employee, the correct procedure would
have been to claim his eligibility at the pre-hearing conference and to proceed
from there along established procedures for hearing or filing of a supplemental
agreement.
Under NLRB procedure:
"An objection to the election cannot be based on the
appropriateness of the bargaining unit or upon voter eligibility, for
these questions must be raised in proper proceedings." (emphasis added)
Morris, ed., The Developing Labor Law, (BNA, 1971), at p. 195.
Our rules permit the
filing of objections to challenge rulings made by the Executive Director
concerning the bargaining unit or voter eligibility, but there were no such
rulings in this case. NLRB procedures
approved by the Supreme Court of the United States also require that challenges
to the eligibility of voters be made "prior to the actual casting of
ballots". NLRB v. A.J. Tower Co.,
329 U.S. 324 (1946).
RCW 41.56.080 provides
for certification of the organization "which has been determined to
represent a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit."
(emphasis added). WAC 391-25-530(2)
implements the statute. The results of
the election conducted in this case indicate that the union failed to
demonstrate majority support in the bargaining unit. See: Best Motor Lines, 82 NLRB 269
(1949).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The above-named petitioner timely filed
with the Commission a petition for investigation of a question concerning
representation of employees of the above-named employer; said petition was
accompanied by a showing of interest which was administratively determined by
the Commission to be sufficient; and the employer declined voluntarily to
extend recognition to the petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees.
2. The organization listed above as
intervenor timely moved for intervention in the captioned proceedings; and said
motion for intervention was supported by a showing of interest which was
administratively determined by the Commission to be sufficient.
3. These representation proceedings were
conducted by the Commission in the bargaining unit described as:
ALL FULL-TIME AND REGULAR PART-TIME INSPECTOR/DISPATCHERS OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION EXCLUDING ALL OTHER
EMPLOYEES OF THE EMPLOYER.
4. 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 their bargaining representative, if
any; a tally of the results was previously furnished to the parties and is
attached hereto; and no meritorious objections have been filed with respect to
these proceedings.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The unit described in
finding of fact number 3 is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of RCW 41.56 and all conditions precedent to a
certification have been met.
NOW,
THEREFORE, it is
CERTIFIED
The
majority of the employees of the above named employer employed in the
appropriate collective bargaining unit described in finding of fact number 3
have chosen:
NO REPRESENTATION
as
their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with their
employer with respect to wages, hours and conditions of employment.
Issued
at Olympia, Washington, this 13th day of
December, 1982.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS COMMISSION
JANE R.
WILKINSON, Chairman
MARK C. ENDRESEN,
Commissioner
MARY ELLEN KRUG,
Commissioner