Hafer, Cassidy & Price, by John Burns, Attorney at Law, for the union.

Wes Moore, Administrative Assistant to the King County Personnel Manager, for the employer.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On May 8, 1980, the Service Employees International Union, Local No. 6 filed a petition with the Public Employment Relations Commission for certification as bargaining representative of certain employees of King County's Department of Youth Services Work Training Programs. On July 22, 1980, the union and the county signed an election agreement in which they stipulated to an eligibility list of employees eligible to vote in the election. The agreement set the election for August 20, 1980. The "Notice of Election" posted prior to the election indicated "Employees will be eligible to vote if they are employed within the bargaining unit on July 22, 1980 and on the date of the election". At the election, 26 ballots were cast for "no representation" and 16 ballots were cast for the union. On August 24, 1980, the union timely filed objections to the election, alleging that:

* * *

"4. The employer wrongfully acted to threaten the employees and coerce them in their choice by moving a planned reduction in force from August 11 to the day after the election. The change was made, accordingly to the employer on account of the election. The number of people to be laid off was stated the day before the election; the names the day after.

5. This activity wrongfully affected the election by threatening the individuals' job security.

6. This activity wrongfully affected the election by allowing ineligible people to vote."

A hearing on the matter was held on September 12, 1980 before Hearing Officer Alan R. Krebs.

THE FACTS

The King County Youth Work Training Program provides job counseling and placement to low income and disadvantaged youth. Staffing nine separate offices in King County, are counselor/case workers and office workers. Several section planners handle certain specialized activities. The program is a subdivision of the King County government, but is funded in large by federal funds. The staff size of the program fluctuates frequently with the appropriation decisions of Congress and the county.

Layoffs occurred in 1979 in both the "in school" and "out of school" segments of the program. In the "in school" program the selection of individuals for layoff was based on seniority. In the "out of school" program layoffs were based on a points system, whereby individuals received a rating based on seniority and merit.

In early 1980, the "in school" and "out of school" segments of the program were administratively combined. It became apparent to program manager Jim Holm and the program staff that the new federal funding levels would require another layoff. Holm decided to develop a single layoff policy for the program. On July 10, 1980, Holm issued a memorandum to the staff in which he asked for staff comments regarding a draft proposal for a new layoff policy for expected funding cuts of 20 to 40%.

On July 24, 1980, two days after the Election Agreement was signed, a new layoff procedure was announced. Layoff decisions were to be based 50% on merit and 50% on seniority, with the additional consideration of the program's affirmative action goals. Under the plan, each employee would receive a numerical rating based on points received for years of service, and points received for merit, with the latter determined by decision of management. Management would decide how many layoffs would be made in each job classification. The layoff decisions were to be announced on August 15, 1980, and were to be effective on September 15, 1980. Accordingly to Holm, the September 15 date was selected because it was two weeks from the end of the program's fiscal year, when the grant would expire.

On July 25, 1980, the staff was notified that the layoff decision would be delayed until August 21, 1980, and would be effective on September 18, 1980. Holm testified that after he consulted with the county's personnel department, the layoff announcement date was changed to the day following the union representation vote in order to avoid affecting the vote. This reason for the delay was brought out at a meeting on July 29, 1980, at which bargaining unit members were present. The union voiced no objection prior to the representation election.

It appears that the county did not campaign for or against union representation.

The employees were informed of their individual ratings on about August 15. However, until the August 21 announcement, they knew neither their relative ranking, nor the number of employees to be laid off from within each job classification.

When the layoffs were announced, ten employees were to be laid off out of a total of about sixty employees. Fewer employees were laid off than was anticipated because of a favorable local funding decision. One of these employees was subsequently re-employed. While the others will be kept on a rehire list for two years, it is not possible to predict that they will be recalled.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The union contends that the election results should be set aside and a new election directed. It asserts that by altering the layoff announcement date, the county wrongfully failed to continue scheduled benefits or detrimental acts during the pre-election period. This resulted in anxiety and potential coercion among the employees which created an improper atmosphere for an election. The union further argues that the county's delay in identifying who was to be laid off until after the vote wrongfully permitted the employees destined for layoff to participate in the election.

The county asserts that the postponement of the layoff notification was made in order to make certain that the impending layoffs would not influence the outcome of the election. To do otherwise would give the appearance that it was using the layoffs in a retaliatory manner, or that it was manipulating the employees. Further, any resulting job insecurity should have worked to the benefit of the union. Finally, the county contends that the employees who were not yet laid off as of the date of the election would have been eligible to vote in any event.

DISCUSSION

We first address the eligibility issue. The eligibility of an employee (other than an employee hired on a temporary basis) to vote in a representation election is not affected by an expectation that the employee will soon no longer be employed. Reidbord Bros. Co., 99 NLRB 127 (1952). In the case at hand, all of the employees who the union alleges should not have been entitled to vote (because they were to be laid off a month following the election) were employed on the day the Election Agreement was signed and on the day of the election. They were included on the parties' stipulated eligibility list and were entitled to vote.

We also hold that the election should not be set aside because of the employer's actions in regard to layoff announcements. The revised layoff policy was issued only one day after the announcement of the original policy. Both of those events took place almost four weeks prior to the election. Neither policy resulted from or violated any agreement or understanding with the union, either express or implied, concerning the scheduling of the election. Considering the county's neutral attitude during the election campaign, and the fact that the necessity for some layoffs was a foregone conclusion prior to the onset of the representation proceedings, the motives stated by the employer for its actions reflect valid concerns. In light of the impending termination of federal funding as of September 30, some layoff announcement after the May 8 filing of the representation petition was a practical necessity. Only if layoffs had been made effective prior to the August 20, election date could there have been an effect on voter eligibility. Therefore, we are not convinced that the employer's action had any effect on the outcome of the election.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. King County (Department of Youth Services Work Training Programs) is a public employer within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(1).

2. Service Employees International, Local No. 6, is an employee organization within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(2).

3. On July 22, 1980 the employer and union signed an election agreement that set the election for August 20, 1980 and which stipulated that eligible voters would be employees employed within the bargaining unit on July 22, 1980 and on the date of the election.

4. On July 24, 1980 the employer announced a layoff procedure which stated, inter alia, that layoff decision would be announced August 15, 1980, to be effective September 15, 1980.

5. On July 25, 1980 the employer announced a change in the layoff procedure: the layoff announcement would be made on August 21, 1980 and effective on September 18, 1980. The union did not protest this change.

6. The employer did not campaign for or against union representation.

7. The employer's stated reason for its revised layoff procedure was to avoid interfering with the election.

8. On August 20, 1980, the majority of the ballots were cast for "no representation".

9. On August 29, 1980, the union filed objections to the election.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

2. The employer's revised layoff procedure did not provide an appropriate basis for overturning the election.

3. All employees who voted in the election were properly entitled to do so.

ORDER

The objections to conduct affecting the results of the election are hereby denied.

DATED this 22nd day of July, 1981.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

JANE R. WILKINSON, Chairman

[SIGNED]

ROBERT J. WILLIAMS, Commissioner

[SIGNED]

MARK C. ENDRESEN, Commissioner