Thurston County, Decision 6275 (PECB, 1998)

Cline and Emmal by James M. Cline, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Bernadean Broadous, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steve Watson. Labor Relations Manager, appeared on behalf of the employer.

On March 31, 1998, the Thurston County Deputy Prosecutor’s Association, filed a petition for investigation of a question concerning representation with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-25 WAC, seeking certification as exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of Thurston County.

An investigation conference was conducted, by telephone conference call, on April 29, 1998. The parties agreed to the correct eligibility list except for three positions the employer is seeking to exclude as supervisory.[1] The union stated a preference for a cross-check to determine the question concerning representation, while the employer objected to the use of the cross-check procedure. The dispute concerning methodology was referred to the Executive Director.

RCW 41.56.060 sets forth the methods for determining questions concerning representation:

The commission shall determine the bargaining representative by (1) examination of organization membership rolls, (2) comparison of signatures on organization bargaining authorization cards, or (3) by conducting an election specifically therefor.

The Commission’s rules limit the availability of the “cross-check” procedure, as follows:

WAC 391-25-391 Special provision--Public Employees. Where only one organization is seeking certification as the representative of unrepresented employees, and the showing of interest submitted in support of the petition indicates that the organization has been authorized by in excess of seventy percent of the employees to act as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, the executive director may issue a direction of cross-check. The direction of cross-check and any accompanying rulings shall not be subject to review by the Commission except upon objections timely filed under WAC 391-25-590.

Employers occasionally oppose the use of the cross-check procedure on the basis of a general preference for elections.

Examination of the case file indicates that the union submitted the kind of substantial showing of interest required by WAC 391-25-391. The union’s showing of interest in excess of 70% inherently indicates little likelihood of an election altering the result.

DIRECTION OF CROSS-CHECK

1.         A cross-check of records shall be made under the direction of the Public Employment Relations Commission in the appropriate bargaining unit described as:

All full-time and regular part-time deputy prosecuting attorneys assigned criminal cases (including the felony, juvenile and misdemeanor units), excluding the chief deputy, supervisors, confidential employees, and all other employees.

to determine whether a majority of the employees in that bargaining unit have authorized the Thurston County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney’s Association, to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining.

2.         The employer shall immediately supply the Commission with copies of documents from its employment records which bear the signatures of the employees on the eligibility list stipulated by the parties.

Issued at Olympia, Washington, on the 5^th day of May, 1998.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARVIN L. SCHURKE, Executive Director

This order may be appealed by filing timely objections with the Commission pursuant to WAC 391-25-590.