This case comes before the Commission on timely objections filed by the petitioner under WAC 391-25-590(1) to challenge certain employer conduct as improperly affecting the outcome of an election.

BACKGROUND

This proceeding was commenced by a petition for investigation of a question concerning representation filed by International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO, on October 18, 1989. The petitioner sought certification as exclusive bargaining representative of certain environmental health technician employees of the Spokane County Health District.

This proceedings were consolidated, for purposes of hearing and decision, with proceedings on a petition filed by another organization seeking certification for a bargaining unit of Spokane County Health District employees,[1] based on indications that the units sought might overlap. A hearing was held, and the Executive Director issued a decision on June 26, 1990,[2] directing elections in two separate bargaining units.

A representation election was conducted by the Commission staff on August 9, 1990, pursuant to the Direction of Election issued by the Executive Director, for the purpose of determining whether certain environmental health technician employees of the Spokane County Health District desired to be represented by Local 17 for the purposes of collective bargaining. The tally of ballots issued on that date indicates:

The results of the election appeared to be conclusive, favoring the "NO REPRESENTATION" choice.

Local 17 filed timely objections to the election bringing this case before the Commission. The basis for those objections is a letter dated July 23, 1990, sent by the employer to the employees in the proposed bargaining unit. Specifically, Local 17 objects to the following statements made in the July 23, 1990 letter to employees:

1.                  "… with the union, we will no longer be able to deal with each other on a one-to-one or on an individual basis".

2.                  "… you can vote confidentially and without fear of reprisal from the union since the election is by secret ballot …"

3.                  "Remember, unions will generally demand compulsory membership as a condition of employment by the agency".

4.                  "Consider how much you will be asked to pay in dues, fees and assessments. Is it worth it?"

5.                  "I firmly believe that the imposition of a union creates a working relationship that is filled with artificial communication, barriers and unnecessary delays."

6.                  "I hope those doors will not be closed or regulated by a union gate-keeper".

Local 17 requests that the results of the election be set aside, and that another election be conducted.

The employer admits sending the letter in question, but contends that it was a lawful "free speech" communication. The employer requests that the election results be certified.

DISCUSSION

Local 17 suggests that the employer's statements concerning the communication between employer, employee and union were coercive and intimidating. It contends that the reference to ballot secrecy implies that reprisal from Local 17 was something for employees to be concerned about, and it challenges the comments on union security and assessments as being contrary to Local 17's policies on those matters. Referring to legislative declaration of purpose set forth in RCW 41.56.010, Local 17 states that the employer's actions are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act.

WAC 391-25-590 defines objectionable conduct as including:

[S]pecific conduct improperly affecting the results of the election, by violation of these rules, by the use of deceptive campaign practices improperly involving the commission and its processes, by the use of forged documents, or by coercion or intimidation of or threat of reprisal or promise of reward to eligible voters … [emphasis supplied]

The Commission has reviewed the July 23, 1990 letter in light of our rule, and does not find the letter to be coercive or threatening. The employer was entitled within limits to communicate its views on union representation. The Spokane County Health District stayed within acceptable limits; especially since the record does not contain evidence of anti-union animus by the employer. We find, therefore, no merit to the union's objections.

ORDER

1.                  The objections to conduct filed by International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO, are OVERRULED.

2.                  The case is remanded to the Executive Director for issuance of an appropriate certification.

Issued at Olympia, Washington, the 5th day of March, 1991.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

JANET L. GAUNT, Chairperson

[SIGNED]

MARK C. ENDRESEN, Commissioner

[SIGNED]

DUSTIN C. McCREARY, Commissioner