George Blood, uniserv director, appeared for the Classified Public Employees Association/WEA.

Charles Alexander, administrator for employee relations, appeared for the employer.

Barbara Otterson, assistant to the president, appeared for intervenor Washington Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.

The petition filed in the captioned matter on January 22, 1980 sought a unit of “all secretaries and aides excluding confidential secretaries” and estimated 200 employees in the bargaining unit. During the subsequent processing of the case, substantial disagreement arose among the parties as to the number of employees eligible to vote in the bargaining unit. By letter dated March 11, 1980, the Executive Director requested a new list of employees from the employer. Examination of that list by the agency staff disclosed the presence of names with “aide” or “clerk” job titles which had never previously been suggested as eligible voters in the petitioned-for bargaining unit. A consent election agreement was executed April 21, 1980 and was filed with the agency with suggestions as to the arrangements for holding the election.

Pursuant to notice, the representation election was held on May 5, 1980. At that time, 186 of approximately 285 eligible voters cast ballots. The intervenor received 75 votes and the “no representation choice” received 57 votes. The petitioner received 54 votes and filed objections to the election. By letter dated May 14, 1980, the Executive Director postponed a scheduled run-off election and directed the petitioner to supply further information in support of its objections. A procedure for responses was specified, as follows:

“Responses to the foregoing inquiries are to be filed with the undersigned and served on the other parties within five (5) days following the date of this letter. The AFT and the employer will have five (5) days after service of the responses to file and serve their own written responses to the objections.”

The written response of the petitioner was filed on May 28, 1980. Written responses were filed by the employer and the intervenor on June 2, 1980, and the intervenor contends that the petitioner’s response was not timely filed.

The position of the intervenor on timeliness is well taken. Five days following May 14, 1980 would be computed under WAC 391-08-100 and WAC 391-08-103 as ending no later than May 27, 1980. The objections filed on May 12, 1980 were insufficient on their face to identify objectionable conduct affecting the results of the election, and the petitioner failed to amend those objections in a timely manner when given the opportunity to do so. Dismissal of the objections would be appropriate without further comment, but would needlessly obscure facts discovered in the course of the investigation.

All voters had nearly three hours in which to cast their ballots. Of the six voters identified by the petitioner, three appear on the official eligibility list as having voted. Two of the remaining three voters identified by the petitioner are not on the stipulated eligibility list filed (and required by WAC 391-21-114) as a part of the consent election agreement. Parties are not entitled, without good cause, to withdraw from stipulations on eligibility. Community College District No. 5, Decision 448 (CC0L, 1978), and Issaquah School District, Decision 775 (PECB, 1979). There has been no such showing in this case, and objections A.1 and A.2 are therefore insufficient.

A party may take with it its copy of the eligibility list. In this case, that list was the same as the list provided with the consent election agreement. It would be objectionable conduct, for a party to attempt to carry off a list indicating which voters had cast ballots and which had abstained from doing so, but that is not alleged by paragraph A.3 of the objections. Paragraph A.4 of the objections points out that the “Instructions To Observers” sheet issued by the Executive Director can be interpreted to overstate the limitations on observer eligibility which are set forth in WAC 391-21-128. The use of a confidential employee as an observer is both common and acceptable. In this case, the petitioner is in no position to object, as it made no objection at the time of the election and the use of the confidential employees was approved by the observers present on behalf of the intervenor.

As noted above, and in the cases cited, the consent election procedures of the Public Employment Relations Commission require stipulation of the voter eligibility list as an integral part of any consent election agreement. The petitioner does not allege, and the record does not indicate, that such a list was filed with or in connection with the consent election agreement signed by the petitioner and the employer on February 2, 1980. The Executive Director noted sufficient dispute concerning eligibility to thereafter call for a new list of employees from the employer and to require the petitioner to furnish additional showing of interest evidence under WAC 391-21-105. As a result of that process, additional employees were identified having job titles within the scope of the unit originally claimed by the petitioner, and the list grew from a claimed unit of 200 employees to an eligibles list of approximately 285. The petitioner did not act to preserve its objection at the time it now claims that its rights were violated, and the subsequent developments and its ultimate stipulation to the eligibility list indicate that the objection is insufficient to warrant voiding of the election results.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

1. The objections filed by Classified Public Employees Association/WEA are denied.

2. The matter is remanded to the Executive Director for further proceedings in conformity with WAC 391-21-134.

DATED this 16th day of June, 1980.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARY ELLEN KRUG, Chairman

[SIGNED]

ROBERT J. WILLIAMS, Commissioner

[SIGNED]

JOHN H. LEINEN, Commissioner