|
STATE OF WASHINGTON BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION |
|
|
In the matter of the petition of: |
|
|
GENERAL TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 174 |
CASE NO. 6112-D-85-56 |
|
For determination of a dispute concerning the union security obligations of: |
DECISION 2704-A - PECB |
|
ROGER OVERBECK |
|
|
Under a collective bargaining bargaining agreement between the petitioner and: |
DECISION OF COMMISSION |
|
KING COUNTY |
|
Davies, Roberts, Reid and Wacker, by Bruce E. Heller, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Teamsters Local No. 174.
Roger Overbeck, filed a petition for review pro se.
Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney, by John W. Cobb, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, appeared on behalf of the employer.
Examiner Frederick J. Rosenberry issued his findings of fact, conclusions of law and order on June 8, 1987, concluding that the Roger Overbeck has not established a right of non-association under RCW 41.56.122(1) and Chapter 391-95 WAC.[1]
On Monday, June 29, 1987, Overbeck filed a letter with the Commission captioned: "Re: Case Number 06112-D-85-00056 Filed: 11-13-85 : Review". Attached thereto were four documents consisting of six additional sheets, which are identified in the letter. The text of the letter alleges that a membership vote on ratification of the underlying collective bargaining agreement was null and void due to conflict with the by-laws of the local union; alleges that a notice of dues arrearages was insufficient under the union's constitution; alleges that the claimant employee has not received documentation he requested in an ex parte letter directed to the Examiner prior to the hearing; explains one of the attached documents as a sample of the type of notice required by the union's by-laws; alleges that a letter mailed to the union (no copy of which was attached) was timely and substantiated; and alleges that the [Examiner's] conclusions were based on hearsay.
There is no indication on the face of the document filed on June 29, 1987 or on any of its attachments that it has been served on opposing parties. Responding to an acknowledgement letter issued by the Executive Director, counsel for the union subsequently notified the Commission (on behalf of both the union and the employer) that neither of the other parties to the case had been served with the document filed on June 29, 1987.
WAC 391-08-120 requires, generally, that pleadings and other formal papers filed with the agency be served by the originating party on other parties to the proceedings. As specifically regards this case, WAC 391-95-270 provides, in pertinent part:
The original and three copies of the petition for review shall be filed with the Commission at its Olympia office and the party filing the petition shall serve a copy on the other party to the proceedings and on the employer. (Emphasis supplied)
The entire text of the decision in Clover Park School District, Decision 377-A (EDUC, 1978) reads as follows:
The Commission hereby affirms the order of dismissal entered by its Executive Director on February 22, 1978 because of the failure of the petitioners for review to serve copies of all formal papers on all other parties, thereby violating WAC 391-08-120 and [the WAC rule applicable to the case]. The Commission expresses no opinion on the merits of the case.
We see no reason to deviate from that precedent in this case. Parties are not required to be represented by counsel in proceedings before the Commission, but parties who choose to appear pro se are not thereby excused from compliance with the rules duly promulgated by the Commission and published in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
Issued at Olympia, Washington this 15th day of September, 1987.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
[SIGNED]
JANE R. WILKINSON, Chairman
[SIGNED]
JOSEPH F. QUINN, Commissioner
Commissioner Mark C. Endresen did not take part in the consideration or decision of this case.1
[1] The proceedings were commenced on November 13, 1985, when General Teamsters Local No. 174 (union) filed a petition with the Commission seeking a ruling pursuant to Chapter 391-95 WAC concerning the obligations of Roger Overbeck under the union security provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between the union and King County. Although provided notice, the claimant employee did not appear in person or by authorized representative at the hearing.