Daniel R. Breda, President of the Wenatchee Police Guild, appeared for and upon behalf of the Wenatchee Police Guild.

Larry Carlson, City Attorney, appeared for and upon behalf of the City of Wenatchee.

Pamela G. Bradburn, Attorney at Law, appeared for and upon behalf of the Intervenor, the Washington State Council of County and City Employees, Local 846W.

On October 8, 1979 the Wenatchee Police Guild filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission a petition for investigation of a question concerning representation of employees in the Police Department of the City of Wenatchee, other than uniformed personnel, and for certain court employees. The petition specifically seeks to represent “Dispatchers, Jailers, Jail Cook, Records and Identification, Parking Control, Parking Clerk-Matron, Court Clerks.”

The incumbent bargaining representative, Washington State Council of County and City Employees (WSCCCE), made a timely motion for intervention, which was granted. A hearing was held in the matter on November 19, 1979 before George G. Miller, Hearing Officer. The parties stipulated at the hearing that “the proposed bargaining unit includes all the non-uniformed employees in the Police Department of the City of Wenatchee and all the employees in the Municipal Court of the City of Wenatchee.” The parties also stipulated that both the Petitioner and the Intervenor are bargaining representatives within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3) and that PERC has jurisdiction in this matter.

BACKGROUND

WSCCCE Local No. 846W has represented a unit of non-uniformed employees of the City of Wenatchee since 1969. The petitioned-for employees were added to the unit by certification on January 30, 1975. The Petitioner presently represents the Uniformed Officers of the Police Department.

These bargaining units along with the Fire Fighter unit comprise the three groups of represented employees of the City.

There are a total of fourteen (14) employees in the unit which Petitioner seeks to sever from the city-wide bargaining unit represented by WSCCCE.

According to the City’s Authorized Job Title and Classification Plan, the correct job titles of the petitioned-for employees are as follows: the Deputy Court Clerk, Matron, Dispatchers, Records and Identification employees are all Department Assistant II. The Department Assistant II classification is a broad, city-wide job title which covers employees doing general clerical work such as typing, filing and scheduling, as well as dispatching. Employees can and do transfer from one department to another and have seniority rights in applying for promotional positions.

The employees in the proposed bargaining unit work in, or out of, a building which is adjacent to the City Hall. They use the copy machine in the City Hall, and also do their mailing there. The non-commissioned personnel of the Police Department are supervised by various Police Officers who happen to be on duty during their shift. The Municipal Court employees are supervised by the Municipal Court Judge.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The Petitioner states that the non-commissioned employees of the Police Department and the Municipal Court employees represent an appropriate bargaining unit and should be severed from the over-all city-wide unit. All of the employees in the petitioned-for unit fall within the Criminal Justice System and the training of these employees is coordinated through the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission. Petitioner points out that these employees all work in the same building separate from other city employees and have little contact with them. Further, these employees are alleged to have a high degree of commonality, working relationships and mutual interest with the Police Officers in the Police Department.

The employer opposed the severance petition, stating that it would be disruptive of the City’s labor relations process. The City claims that an additional bargaining unit would be an additional burden in both time and expense. Since the same job classifications are found throughout the City, the ability to transfer employees would be sharply curtailed. The employer states the existing, historical unit has provided a very good bargaining relationship.

The Intervenor contends that the petitioned-for unit is inappropriate for severance from the existing unit. The duties, skills, and working conditions vary substantially within the proposed unit while there are similar work functions elsewhere in the City. Intervenor argues that the Criminal Justice System is no more distinct than the Sewage Treatment Plant which is included in the city-wide unit. Further, WSCCCE points out that there is no history of separate representation of the petitioned-for employees.

DISCUSSION

In making a determination as to whether or not a petitioned-for unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining the Commission is required to follow the criteria set forth in RCW 41.56.060 and base its decision on:

“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 desires of the public employees.” RCW 41.56.060.

In this case there is no history of separate representation of the petitioned-for employees and there is a long history of bargaining under which the petitioned-for employees have been included in the city-wide unit. Severance principles are applicable, Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 162 NLRB 387 (1966); Bremerton School District, Decision 527 (PECB, 1978). It is necessary that the Petitioner demonstrate the viability of its proposed severance in order to justify disruption of the long-established bargaining relationship. It is concluded that it has failed to sustain that burden.

While the unified departmental effort certainly exists among both commissioned and non-commissioned employees of the Police Department and the Municipal Court employees, the record does not demonstrate a community of interest sufficient to justify fragmentation of the existing city-wide bargaining unit. Each department within the city faces the same basic situation. While not identical, the varied duties of the positions in separate departments are nevertheless somewhat similar when seen from an overview.

Persons hired through a central personnel office, having opportunity to routinely transfer to and from various departments, possessing similar job descriptions, and receiving similar pay and benefits have been found to be appropriately placed in a singular unit. City of Tacoma, Decision 204 (PECB, 1977). Employees sharing comparable wages, fringe benefits and general working conditions with other employees have been found to lack the unique community of interest and separate identity of a functionally distinct group. Kent School District, Decision 127 (PECB, 1976).

Although the non-commissioned police employees and the Municipal Court employees may work in a separate location on a different schedule and with limited interchange between other city employees, they share a community of interest, wages, hours and working conditions with other city employees. No changes of circumstance warranting a change of unit status has occurred. Establishment of a separate bargaining unit would merely have the effect of fragmenting the established unit.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The City of Wenatchee is a public employer within the meaning of RCW 41.56.

2. The Wenatchee Police Guild, a labor organization and bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW 41.56, timely filed a petition for representation of all the non-uniformed employees in the Police Department of the City of Wenatchee and all the employees in the Municipal Court of the City of Wenatchee.

3. Washington State Council of County and City Employees, AFL-CIO, Local No. 846W, a labor organization and bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW 41.56, timely moved for intervention in the matter on the basis of its status as the certified exclusive bargaining representative of a unit which includes all non-commissioned city employees except those represented by other labor organizations and all of the employees claimed by the petitioner.

4. Non-commissioned city employees receive similar wages, overtime vacation, sick leave accrual and insurance benefits along with other terms and conditions of employment.

5. Duties performed by non-commissioned employees of the Police Department and the Municipal Court are, in general, similar to those performed by other non-commissioned city employees and are distinct from those of the uniformed (commissioned) officers of the police department.

6. The employees in the bargaining unit proposed by the petitioner all work for or in connection with the Police Department or the Municipal Court of the employer, but do not share common supervision, work locations, minimum qualifications or duties among themselves.

7. There has been no history of separate representation of the petitioned-for employees. The intervenor continues to be a viable organization and has a continued interest in representing the employees in the petitioned-for bargaining unit.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to RCW 41.56.

2. The petitioned-for bargaining unit of non-commissioned employees of the City of Wenatchee Police Department and the Municipal Court employees is not an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of RCW 41.56.060; and no question concerning representation presently exists.

ORDER

The petition for investigation of a question concerning representation filed in this matter shall be, and hereby is, dismissed.

DATED at Olympia, Washington, this 13th day of June, 1980.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARVIN L. SCHURKE, Executive Director