STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
In the matter of the petition of:
DAVID B. CORDARO	CASE 11379-E-94-1874
Involving certain employees of:	DECISION 5159-PECB
CITY OF SEATTLE	ORDER ON OBJECTIONS

David B. Cordaro, appeared pro se.

Mark H. Sidran, City Attorney, by Marilyn F. Sherron, Assistant City Attorney, appeared on behalf of the employer.

Robert A. Zappone, Business Representative, appeared on behalf of the incumbent intervenor, Carpenters Union, Local 131.

On October14, 1994, David B. Cordaro filed a petition for investigation of a question concerning representation with the Public Employment Relations Commission, seeking to decertify Carpenters Union, Local 131(union), as the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit of building inspectors and carpenters employed by the City of Seattle (employer). [1]After routine processing of the case, the Commission conducted are presentation election by mail ballot voting procedures. The tally of ballots issued on December 14, 1994, indicated:

Votes cast for Carpenters Union, Local 131. . . . . . 31

Votes cast for No Representation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9

It appeared that a conclusive result had been reached, such that the union would retain its status as exclusive bargaining representative for the unit.

On December 21, 1994, Cordaro filed timely objections with the Commission under WAC 391-25-590(1), alleging that the union had engaged in conduct improperly affecting the results of the election. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer Mark S. Downing on March 23, 1995. The union filed a post-hearing brief.

BACKGROUND

Ballot materials were mailed to employees on November 30, 1994. The objections focus on two events which predate that mailing.

Exclusion of Cordaro from a Meeting

The following objections were filed in relation to a meeting held on November 8, 1994:

On November 8, 1994 Bob Zappone of the Carpenters Union attended [a] meeting of carpenter shop representatives and stated I (Dave Cordaro) was not welcome at the meeting and asked me to leave because I had started the decertification election process. My attendance had been requested by several carpenters to answer questions about the election process. Following by [sicl departure false claims were allegedly made regarding contract promises. (see ULP Case 11434-U-94-2682)

Zappone is a business representative with Carpenters Union, Local 131 (union). Case 11434-U-94-2682 is an unfair labor practice case filed by Cordaro on November 14, 1994, concerning this meeting. [2]

The November 8th meeting was held after work hours, at a restaurant in downtown Seattle. Apart from Cordaro, it was attended by Zappone and four bargaining unit employees.

The Campaign Letter

The following objections were filed in regard to a letter sent by Zappone to bargaining unit employees on November 29, 1994:

On November 29, 1994 Bob Zappone sent the attached letter to all bargaining unit members with the intent of influencing the upcoming vote. Several claims made in the letter regarding overtime, boot allowance, work clothing, grievance procedures and out-of-class pay are false. These issues are handled differently in various departments. For example, Mechanical inspectors are not represented by any union but receive the same boot allowance as building inspectors who are represented by Local 131. This information was deliberately distributed to persuade voters in the decertification election.

The union's November 29th letter to bargaining unit employees reads as follows:

Dear(name):

I am writing this letter to give you some factual information concerning the upcoming vote in regards to union representation.

The Public Employee [sic] Relations Commission (PERC) is the agency that will oversee this process. PERC will mail out ballots to eligible City carpenters and building inspectors on November 30, 1994. The ballots must be returned to PERC in time to be counted on December 14, 1994.

Eligible employees are defined as: regular full-time and part-time employees and temporary employees who have worked 3 74 hours in the previous year and are on the City payroll as of November 30, 1994.

What does it mean to "decertify" the Carpenters Union as your bargaining representative? If a majority of the folks currently represented by the Carpenters Union vote for decertification several things will happen. First and foremost, you will no longer be working under the terms and conditions of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement, what we call "the contract. " This means that the provisions contained in the contract such as double time for overtime, the boot allowance, employer provision of work clothing, out-of-class language, the grievance procedure, the apprenticeship program and all the other things in the contract will go away. You will have to rely upon yourself for problems with [your] supervisor, on whether or not your work will be contracted out and jurisdictional problems. You will not have a union to fight those battles for you nor a union representative to call upon when you need assistance in these or other employment related matters.

In addition, at present I am one of four negotiators from the Coalition of City Unions bargaining with the City for wages and benefits. I also am on the City Labor Management Task Force that was recently established to find ways for the City to become more efficient and improve productivity and service delivery as an alternative to contracting out your job.

I have worked hard as your representative to establish a reputation with City management and the other City Unions that can be of real benefit to you and your brother and sister carpenters in the future.

I hope that you will not vote for decertification. I urge you to think carefully before you cast your ballot. Feel free to call me at (phone number) with any questions you may have.

Fraternally, Robert A. Zappone

Two shop stewards also wrote letters advising city carpenters and building inspectors of concerns about decertification. A November 28th letter from Department of Administrative Services shop steward

Jo Scherer urged employees to retain the union in the upcoming vote, citing issues such as contracting out, the apprenticeship program, out-of-class pay, and the 4/10 work schedule. A letter from Beth Brooks, shop steward in the Water Department, spoke in favor of keeping the union, and discussed the issues of overtime, contracting out and boot allowance.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Cordaro protests his exclusion from the November 8th meeting, saying the meeting was held at a public establishment and that he was invited to attend by other employees. Cordaro argues that he should have been allowed to present the perspective of the decertification petitioner, since the topic was to be discussed. Cordaro maintains the union used scare tactics and made false claims in its November 29th letter to bargaining unit employees. Cordaro asserts that statements in the letter that certain benefits "will go away" or be lost if the union was decertified are false, as non represented employees have some of the same benefits.

The union asserts that the November 8th meeting was called by Zappone for shop stewards only, and that Cordaro had not been appointed by the union as a shop steward. The union disputes any alleged "public" nature of the meeting, claiming that the meeting involved the union's internal affairs. The union argues that statements made in the November 29th letter concerning the benefits of representation are true. The union asserts that the letter was a good faith presentation of what it believed would happen if employees were not represented by a labor organization. The union believes Cordaro filed objections to the election merely because he failed in his attempt to decertify the union.

Although the employer participated in the hearing, it raised no issues and has taken no position on the issues raised by the other parties.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of a representation election is to allow employees the choice of whether they wish to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining. As stated in Lake Stevens-Granite Falls Transportation Cooperative, Decision 2462 (PECB, 1986), the Commission's function is to provide the "laboratory conditions" under which employees can make an uncoerced decision on the question of representation. Allegations concerning misconduct improperly affecting the results of an election are considered by the Commission under WAC 391-25-590(1), which provides:

WAC 391-25-590 FILING AND SERVICE OF OBJECTIONS. Within seven days after the tally has been served under WAC 391-25-410 or under WAC 391-25-550, any party may file objections with the commission. Objections may consist of:

(1) Designation of specific 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, . . .

The election objections in this case were timely filed in accordance with WAC 391-25-590.

The November 8th Meeting

Zappone called the November 8th meeting, inviting shop stewards to attend. Section14. 5ofthecollectivebargainingagreement between the union and the City of Seattle provides that the union may appoint employees to act as shop stewards. [3] According to the agreement, the function of a shop steward is to act as the union's representative on the job, informing the union of any alleged violations of the agreement and processing grievances related to the agreement. After appointment of a shop steward, the union is obligated to notify the personnel office and affected department of the appointment.

Cordaro's unfair labor practice complaint concerning this same incident contained his version of what happened at the meeting. The complaint alleged that Cordaro, Zappone, and four other unit employees attended the meeting. The complaint indicated that Zappone began the meeting by stating that he was concerned as to whether he could speak freely due to Cordaro's presence, and that Cordaro left the meeting after Zappone asked the four "shop representatives" whether Cordaro was welcome at the meeting. The complaint alleged that it was Zappone's intent to use the meeting to influence employees concerning the upcoming election. Like these objections, Cordaro's complaint asserted that he did not have a fair chance to reply to Zappone's statements made at the meeting.

Cordaro's complaint was the subject of a preliminary ruling issued under WAC 391-45-110, [4] in which Executive Director Marvin L. Schurke found that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The unfair labor practice case was then dismissed on March 10, 1995, for failure to state a cause of action:

The . . . complaint alleges the union violated rights assured to Cordaro by Chapter 41. 56 RCW when it excluded him from a meeting of union representatives allegedly organized to discuss the decertification petition. Cordaro has not cited any provision of Chapter 41. 56 RCW, nor is any found, that obligates a union to provide a campaign forum to the person seeking to terminate the union's status as exclusive bargaining representative. Furthermore, this allegation focuses on the union's regulation of its internal affairs, a matter over which the Commission has limited jurisdiction. City of Pasco, Decision 4860 (PECB, 1994) ;Lewis County, Decision 464, 464-A(PECB, 1978) .

City of Seattle, Decision 5026(PECB, 1995).

Cordaro did not petition for Commission review of that order of dismissal.

Chapter 41. 56 RCW contains no provisions expressly regulating the internal affairs of labor organizations, and the Commission has taken a very limited role in this area. The history of federal regulations on this subject matter (which are applicable only to unions representing private sector employees) , was discussed in King County, Decision 4253 (PECB, 1992). It was concluded there that, while some regulation of internal union affairs may or may not be appropriate, any regulations in this area will have to be adopted by the Legislature. The Legislature has not addressed the regulation of internal union affairs in subsequent sessions.

In Lewis County, Decision 464-A (PECB, 1978), a union refused to allow non-members to attend a meeting called to formulate the union's bargaining proposals. The Commission dismissed the employer's unfair labor practice complaint protesting the union's conduct, reasoning that the union had a right to control its internal affairs and to limit participation in such activities to union members. After the decision, the employer refused to bargain with the union, prompting the union to file unfair labor practice charges. The Examiner found that the employer committed a refusal to bargain violation under RCW 41. 56. 140(4), despite the employer's claims that it had no duty to bargain with a union that refused to permit participation by non-members. Lewis County, Decision 556 (PECB, 1978). In affirming the Examiner's decision in that case, the Commission stated:

No law except, perhaps, its own bylaws directs the bargaining agent as to how to formulate its proposals. It need not consult all, or any, or its own members. It certainly need not consult nonmembers, . . .

The certified bargaining agent represents all the employees in the unit and the manner in which it conducts its internal affairs is no concern of the employer.

Lewis County, Decision 556-A(PECB, 1979)[Emphasis by bold supplied. ]

The Commission's hands-off attitude towards the internal affairs of unions was recently reiterated in University of Washington, Decision 4668 (PECB, 1994) [concerning formulation of union positions and bargaining proposals] ; and City of Pasco, Decision 4860 (PECB, 1994) [concerning selection of union negotiating committee members] .

Shop stewards act as agents of the union at the workplace. They are appointed by the union to assist it in policing the collective bargaining agreement. A union may call for meetings of its shop stewards at its own discretion, and can restrict those meetings to whomever it chooses. The scheduling of meetings for shop stewards clearly falls within the internal affairs of a union.

Cordaro was never appointed by the union as a shop steward and, in fact, is not even a union member. Under these circumstances, the union did not interfere with any of Cordaro's rights under Chapter 41. 56 RCW in regards to the November 8th shop stewards' meeting.

The Campaign Letter

The union does not dispute having sent the letter which is at issue in this election objection.

Standards for Determining Campaign Misrepresentations –In Tacoma School District, Decision4216-A(PECB, 1993), the Commission adopted the following standards concerning alleged campaign misrepresentations:

To set aside an election, a misrepresentation must:

1. Be a substantial misrepresentation of fact or law regarding a salient issue;

2 . Made by a party having intimate knowledge of the subject matter so that employees may be expected to attach added significance to the assertion;

3. Occurring at a time which prevents another party from effectively responding; and

4. Reasonably viewed as having had a significant impact on the election, whether a deliberate misrepresentation or not.

Those standards have been consistently followed by the Commission in subsequent decisions. See, Tacoma School District, Decision 4216-B (PECB, 1993); City of Federal Way, Decision 4088-A (PECB, 1993), affirmed Decision 4088-B (PECB, 1994); Intercity Transit, Decision 4648 (PECB, 1994). We see no reason to depart from those standards, and will utilize them in deciding this case.

Application of Precedent

Criteria 2-Knowledge/Authority of Party -

The November 2 9th letter contains statements by Zappone concerning provisions found in the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The signature page of the agreement contains Zappone's signature on behalf of the union. Thus, Zappone clearly meets the criteria of being a person who had intimate knowledge of the subject matter being addressed. The eligible voters who read the November 2 9th letter could have attached added significance to the assertions made by Zappone, and could reasonably have believed that those representations deserved special credence. The statements objected to in the November 29th letter meet the second of the criteria set forth in Tacoma School District.

Criteria 3 - Timing of Campaign Material -

The union's November 29th letter was mailed to employees on the day before the Commission sent out mail ballots.

The union's post-hearing brief argues that there was ample opportunity to respond to the letter at a meeting called by Cordaro on the evening of November 29th. That meeting was held at the Seattle City Light South Service Center Auditorium and was attended by approximately 20 bargaining unit employees. The union's brief indicates that Zappone attended the meeting and that the issue of decertification was thoroughly debated by both sides. The union failed to present evidence concerning this meeting at the hearing, however.

Proceedings under WAC 391-25-590 are subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 34. 05 RCW. Pursuant to RCW 34. 05. 461(3), an agency's orders must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law that are based on evidence presented by the parties at a hearing. Under RCW 34. 05. 461(4), findings of fact must be based exclusively on the evidence of record in the adjudicative proceeding, or on matters officially noticed in that proceeding. For this reason, none of the information concerning the November 2 9th meeting can be considered by the Commission in ruling on the election objections.

The Commission mailed ballot materials to the eligible voters on November 3 0th. As the Commission noted in Tacoma School District, supra, an employee is deemed to have voted in the mail balloting setting once their ballot is deposited in the return mail addressed to the Commission. In a close election such as the one at issue here, it is reasonable to presume that at least some of the eligible voters marked and mailed their ballots immediately upon receiving them. The union's November 29th mailing precluded Cordaro or the employer from making an effective response, since any rebuttal received by eligible voters after their ballot materials could not have effected a change of votes already cast. The timing of the union's letter thus meets the third of the criteria set forth in Tacoma School District.

Criteria 4- Significant Impact on the Election -

The union's November 29th letter made reference to provisions in the expiring collective bargaining agreement which established a double-time rate of compensation in overtime situations, a boot allowance, employer-provided work clothing, out-of-class pay, the grievance procedure, and an apprenticeship program. These issues were being discussed by employees during the pre-election campaign.

At the November 8th shop steward meeting, Zappone and the four employees had discussed various issues that had arisen concerning the upcoming decertification vote, including the subjects of overtime, contracting out, boot allowance, work clothing, and the apprenticeship program. The same issues were discussed in separate letters sent by two shop stewards to bargaining unit employees during the pre-election campaign. The letters from shop stewards Scherer and Brooks expressed concerns over such issues as contracting out, the apprenticeship program, out-of-class pay, the 4/10 work schedule, overtime, and the boot allowance.

The question of overtime, boot allowance, work clothing, out-of-class pay, and the apprenticeship program were significant issues to employees during the pre-election campaign. The November 29th letter could have had a substantial impact on the election, and the fourth of the criteria of Tacoma School District has been met.

Criteria 1 - The Claimed Misrepresentations -

The critical issue in this case is whether the challenged statements in the November 29th letter constituted "substantial misrepresentations". Cordaro argues that the union referred to benefits that would be lost if decertification was successful, but that nonrepresented employees enjoy some of the same benefits, so that the union's letter is false. The union argues that the statements in its letter are true, and that the letter presents what the union believes would happen if employees lose the protections contained in the collective bargaining agreement.

The fourth paragraph of the disputed letter contains the statements that are challenged by Cordaro. The pertinent portion of the paragraph reads as follows:

First and foremost, you will no longer be working under the terms and conditions of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement,

what we call "the contract. " This means that the provisions contained in the contract such as double time for overtime, the boot allowance, employer provision of work clothing, out-of-class language, the grievance procedure, the apprenticeship program and all the other things in the contract will go away. You will have to rely upon yourself for problems with [your] supervisor, on whether or not your work will be contracted out and jurisdictional problems. You will not have a union to fight those battles for you nor a union representative to call upon when you need assistance in these or other employment related matters.

[Emphasis by bold supplied. ]

Cordaro argues that Zappone's November 2 9 letter, Brooks' November 28 letter, and Scherer's November 28 letter all contain opinions with no factual basis. [5]

Cordaro interprets the union's letter as saying the benefits that bargaining unit members presently enjoy would automatically "go away" upon decertification. It is true that the benefits would not necessarily "go away" automatically with the singular act of decertification. Two separate events would have to transpire before employees would lose any benefits: First, the union would have to be decertified; and second, the employer would need to take some affirmative action to alter the existing benefits.

We find, however, that the union's theme, and its actual words, are clearly that, with decertification, the employees would no longer be working under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. It is clear the employees become unrepresented upon decertification .

Although it is possible to gain approval of benefits for unrepresented employees through the city council process, the record indicates that the trend has been in the opposite direction with regard to most, if not all, of the specific benefits that were at issue in this pre-election campaign. Regardless of the interpretation we might apply to Zappone's November 29 letter, we find sufficient factual support in the record for Zappone's statements:

1.                Zappone stated that the provision in the contract relating to double-time for overtime would go away. At the November 8th meeting, the shop steward for the Water Department advised the group that unrepresented public works laborers had lost the double-time rate for overtime work. Beth Brooks referred in her letter to an ordinance passed by the city council the previous year, which decreased the overtime rate for unrepresented employees to time-and-one-half. She also stated:

[I]n talking with the [the employer's] Labor Relations unit it was said that without the protection of a union contract that our overtime rate would go to time and a half (1 1/2) time rather than the double time which we and other REPRESENTED trades and groups currently enjoy.

Exhibit 5. [Emphasis by bold supplied. ]

The record indicates that the employer's unrepresented employees receive time-and-one-half for overtime work, and that only union-represented employees of the City of Seattle receive double-time for overtime work. [6]

(2) Zappone stated that the provision in the contract relating to the boot allowance would go away. Some of the employer's unrepresented employees do receive a boot allowance, but Beth Brooks stated in her letter that when a generous supervisor tried to obtain a boot allowance for nonrepresented trade employees in the Water Department, they were told that:

[The] City Council would have to pass an ordinance to allow this for nonrepresented employees even though represented employees within their unit enjoyed such benefits. They were told that if they had a negotiated contract that they would too be allowed a boot allowance. The fact that we would no longer receive this benefit as nonrepresented employees was confirmed by the Labor Relations unit of City Personnel.

Exhibit 5[emphasis by bold supplied].

At a minimum, the record supports a conclusion that the boot allowance first became a benefit to City of Seattle employees through the collective bargaining process.

(3)               Zappone stated that "You will have to rely upon yourself for . . . whether or not your work will be contracted out. " It is clear from South Kitsap School District, Decision 472 (PECB, 1977), and numerous subsequent Commission decisions that transfers of bargaining unit work to employees outside of the bargaining unit are a mandatory subject of collective bargaining where the employees have organized for the purposes of collective bargaining. In this case, the issue of how decertification would affect the issue of contracting out was discussed at the November 8 shop steward meeting. A city ordinance previously sought to contract out city work, and various unions representing City of Seattle employees had formed a coalition to discuss that issue with the employer. [7] Jo Scherer testified that she was aware of discussions within the preceding 1-1/2 to 2 years that involved contracting out of her work, and that the employer has buildings where private contractors do the maintenance. [8]

(4)               Zappone stated that the grievance procedure would go away. Article XX of the expiring collective bargaining agreement defined a contract grievance as any dispute between the employer and union concerning the interpretation, application, claim of breach or violation of the express terms of the agreement. If the union were to be decertified, the contract and the grievance process contained in it would naturally cease to exist.

(5)               Zappone stated that the apprenticeship program would go away. If the union were to be decertified, any union-management cooperative apprenticeship program arising out of their former collective bargaining relationship would naturally disappear.

(6)               Zappone stated that the out-of-class language would go away. We find nothing in the record which disputes this claim, or which shows this to be a misrepresentation. In fact, Article V Section 5. 9 of the collective bargaining agreement, which allowed higher pay for work performed at a higher level, was only effective "upon the signature date of this Agreement". The majority of the contract language was not qualified in that manner. The unusual contract terms on this subject lead us to believe that the benefit could cease to exist without the contract.

(7)               Zappone stated that employer-provided work clothing would "go away" . We find nothing in the record which disputes his claim, or which shows this to be a misrepresentation of fact.

(8)               Zappone stated that "all the other things in the contract" would go away. Again, we find nothing in the record which disputes his claim, or which shows this to be a misrepresentation of fact. There was discussion of other issues during the campaign, including discussion at the November 8 meeting over concern that the 4/10 work schedule could be taken away if there was no longer a union contract. In her letter of November 28th, Scherer referred to having fought to obtain and maintain a 4/10 hour work day schedule. Although a reading of the contract indicates that employees are not guaranteed a 4/10 schedule, the fact that employees had to fight to maintain it indicates a trend of the employer to withhold or not freely give benefits without vigorous pursuit by represented employees. [9]

The record shows that, after the filing of the decertification petition and prior to the election, Zappone was providing information to bargaining unit employees based on his experience and knowledge as to what happens without a contract. In determining what could reasonably be expected to happen upon decertification, the whole context of employer-employee relations as evidenced in the record must be considered. Reading Zappone's November 2 9 letter in the context of the letters sent by the two shop stewards and what had transpired in the past, we find the assertions as to what would transpire upon decertification were based on a reasonable interpretation of what could be expected to happen. While the employer would have the option to continue the benefits that employees presently enjoy, it would be free to determine the conditions of employment that it offers to employees. Without the contract, the guarantee of those benefits would indeed "go away".

From the evidence produced at the hearing, we find that Zappone's statements were truthful or, where debatable, were not so far from the truth as to be substantial misrepresentations. [10] Based on the foregoing facts, we conclude that the election results were not improperly affected by the union's November 29th letter to employees.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.             The City of Seattle is a "public employer" within the meaning of Chapter 41. 56 RCW.

2.         Carpenters Union, Local 131, is a "bargaining representative" within the meaning of RCW 41. 56. 030(3).

3.         Carpenters Union, Local 131, has been the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit of carpenters and building inspectors employed by the City of Seattle since 1968.

4.         David B. Cordaro filed a timely and properly supported petition for investigation of a question concerning representation with the Commission on October 14, 1994, seeking to decertify Carpenters Union, Local131, as the exclusive bargaining representative of building inspectors and carpenters employed by the City of Seattle.

5.         The Commission conducted a representation election by mail ballot voting procedures. Ballots were mailed to employees on November 30, 1994. The tally of ballots issued on December14, 1994, indicated the following results:

Votes cast for Carpenters Union, Local 131. . . . . . 31

Votes cast for No Representation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6.         On December 21, 1994, Cordaro filed timely objections to the election, alleging that conduct by Carpenters Union, Local 131, improperly affected the results of the election. The objections related to two events: (1) the union's request that Cordaro leave a meeting of shop stewards held on November 8, 1994, and (2) allegedly false claims made in a letter sent by the union to bargaining unit employees on November 29, 1994 .

7.         The November 8, 1994 meeting of shop stewards was not open to Cordaro, as he had not been appointed by the union as a shop steward.

8.         The union's letter of November 29, 1994, advised eligible voters that, with decertification, employees would no longer be working under the terms of a negotiated collective bargaining agreement. From the evidence produced at the hearing, we find that the union's statements were truthful or, where debatable, were not so far from the truth so as to be substantial misrepresentations.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.         The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Chapter 41. 56 RCW.

2.         Carpenters Union, Local 131, did not violate David Cordaro's rights under Chapter 41. 56 RCW, by asking Cordaro to leave the meeting of union shop stewards held on November 8, 1994.

3.         By mailing the letter to eligible voters on November 29, 1994, as described in the foregoing Findings of Fact, Carpenters Union, Local 131, did not violate the laboratory conditions required for the conduct of a valid representation election under RCW 41. 56. 070, and did not engage in conduct improperly affecting the results of the election under WAC 391-25-590.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

1.         The objections filed by David B. Cordaro shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED.

2.         The matter is remanded to the Executive Director for issuance of a certification.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, the24thday of July, 1995.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

JANET'-L. GAUNT, Chairperson

[SIGNED]

SAM KINVILLE, Commissioner

Commissioner Joseph W. Duffy did not take part in the consideration or decision of this case.