STATE OF WASHINGTON BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
LAKE WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS/WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,	CASE NO. 3866-U-81-599
Complainant,
	DECISION NO. 1863 - EDUC
vs.
LAKE WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT,	FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Respondent.

Barbara Otterson, Assistant to the President, Washington Federation of Teachers, appeared on behalf of the complainant.

Livengood, Silvernale, Carter and Tjossem, by Robert P. Tjossem, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the respondent.

On December 3, 1981, the Lake Washington Federation of Teachers/Washington Federation of Teachers (complainant) filed a complaint with the Public Employment Relations Commission, alleging that Lake Washington School District (respondent) had violated RCW 41.59.140 by unilaterally transferring bargaining unit work without negotiation with the exclusive bargaining representative, and by claiming that employees transferred were not covered by the collective bargaining agreement. Simultaneous with the filing of the unfair labor practice charge, the complainant filed a petition with the Commission for clarification of its bargaining unit relative to certificated employees employed in the community service function at the Lake Washington Vocational-Technical Institute (VTI). By letter dated March 3, 1982, the Executive Director of the Commission notified the parties to this case that the unfair labor practice proceedings would be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the unit clarification matter. The decision in the unit clarification case was issued on December 10, 1982. Lake Washington School District, Decision 1550 (EDUC, 1982). On January 11, 1983, complainant notified the Executive Director that it wished to pursue the unfair labor practice complaint, and amended its complaint to request an additional remedy. Hearing was held in the matter on May 18, 1983, before Martha M. Nicoloff, Examiner. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs.

FACTS

The parties to this proceeding have a bargaining relationship dating to December 5, 1978, when complainant was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of a unit described as:

All full-time and regular part-time vocationally certified employees of Lake Washington VTI excluding the Superintendent, administrative staff, confidentials, certificated employees in the K-12 program and non-certificated employees.

Lake Washington School District, Decision 484-A (EDUC, 1978).

On February 14, 1980, the parties executed a collective bargaining agreement for the above bargaining unit with a term from date of signing through August 31, 1982. The management rights clause of that agreement provided:

ARTICLE II

Management Rights

Section 2.1 All management rights, powers, authority and functions, whether heretofore or hereafter exercised, and regardless of the frequency or infrequency of their exercise, shall remain vested exclusively in the District and its Board of Directors except as expressly and specifically limited by the express provisions of this Agreement. It is expressly recognized that such rights, powers, authority and functions include, but are by no means whatever limited to, the full and exclusive control, management and operation of it (sic) business and its affairs; the determination of the scope of its activities, business to be transacted, functions to be performed, and methods pertaining thereto; the location of its offices, schools and places of business; the right to maintain order and efficiency; the right to contract or subcontract any work; the right to designate the work and functions to be performed by the District and the places where it is to be performed; the determination of the number, size and location of its offices, schools and other places of business, or any part thereof; the right to make and enforce safety and security rules and rules of conduct; the determination of the number of employees and the direction of the employees, including, but by no means whatever limited to, hiring, selecting and training of new employees and suspending or discharging for cause, scheduling, assigning, laying off, recalling, promoting, retiring, demoting and transferring of its employees.

Section 2.2 The District and the Federation agree that the above statement of management rights is for illustrative purposes only and is not to be construed or interpreted so as to exclude those prerogatives not mentioned which are inherent to management, including those prerogatives granted by law. It is the intention of the District and the Federation that the rights, powers, authority and functions of management shall remain exclusively vested in the District except insofar as expressly and specifically surrendered or limited by the express provisions of this Agreement.

Article IV provided that the document constituted the entire agreement of the parties, and Article XXV provided:

Waiver and Complete Agreement

Section 25.1 The parties acknowledge that during negotiations resulting in this Agreement, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any and all subjects or matters not removed by law from the area of collective bargaining and that the understandings and agreements arrived at by the parties are set forth in this Agreement. Neither party shall be obligated to bargain collectively with respect to any subject or matter not specifically referred to or covered in this Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and concludes collective bargaining for its term; subject only to a desire by both parties to mutually agree to amend or supplement at any time.

The contract specified wage rates for Vocational Instructors, Occupational Needs Specialists, and Instructor, Industrial First Aid.

In May, 1980, complainant petitioned to represent certificated employees at the VTI working in adult education. On December 2, 1980, complainant was certified as exclusive bargaining representative for a bargaining unit described as:

All full-time and regular part-time certificated employees of Lake Washington School District No. 414 employed in its Lake Washington Vocational-Technical Institute, including adult education employees. Excluded: Superintendent of Schools, administrative officers, confidential employees, certificated employees in the K-12 program and non-certificated employees.

Lake Washington School District, Decision 1020-A (EDUC, 1980).

After certification, the parties began negotiations regarding the additional employees which had been added to the complainant's bargaining unit and, as a result, developed an addendum to their collective bargaining agreement. The face of that document reflects a date of January 19, 1981, leading to the inference that bargaining was concluded by that time. However, the text of the document indicates that it was to be effective on the date of ratification by the parties. The school board approved the document on July 20, 1981, and the parties signed it on August 17, 1981. The addendum provided that specified sections of the agreement would now apply to teachers in adult education, adult basic education, adult education English-as-a Second-Language (E.S.L.), and special needs. The management rights, entire agreement, and waiver clauses remained unchanged by the addendum, and the recognition clause was simply modified to reflect the additional personnel covered by the agreement.

The union believed, with the execution of the addendum, that it now had a contract covering all certificated employees at the VTI. An internal district memorandum dated June 26, 1981, reflects the district's belief that community service teachers were not represented by any employee organization, and contains a recommendation to unilaterally increase the wage rate for those teachers.

The June 26, 1981 memorandum indicates that the district was considering moving "a number of Adult Education and Vocational Education classes to the Community Services area", and freezing the salaries of those teachers moved to Community Service. The author of the memorandum notes "I have indicated this to a number of teachers and have sensed a level of acceptance." The recommendations of the June 26, 1981 memorandum were apparently approved, as memoranda to certain teachers dated June 29, July 1, and September 11, 1981, notified them of their imminent transfer. All memoranda were titled "Reclassification to Community Service". Two of the memos specifically state that the classes in question were being "transferred" from the adult education or vocational education category to community service. The other memo denotes the move a "reclassification" to community service. The changes apparently were effective in all cases in the fall of 1981. All instructors who received the memoranda were assured that they would receive no reduction in salary, but would receive their 1980-81 rate, as negotiated, until the community service salary rate reached the vocational or adult education level. The union was not furnished copies of those documents.

Barbara Otterson, union business agent, testified that she was unaware of the proposed transfer or reclassification of adult and vocational education employees to community service at the time the addendum to the collective bargaining agreement was signed on August 17, 1981. She was unable to testify as to the knowledge of other union officials, nor was she able to testify to a date certain when the transfers were made known to her. She further testified that, although the union was aware of the existence of the community service function and its teachers at the time of its petition to represent adult education employees, it was not aware until after the district actions in the summer and fall of 1981 that community service teachers were certificated. The unfair labor practice in the instant proceeding was filed on December 3, 1981.

On April 1, 1982, the district and the union executed a memorandum agreement reflecting salary rates for all certificated VTI staff for whom the district received state funding. That memorandum reflected the understanding between the parties, apparently arrived at in November, 1981, that the district would pass on to the bargaining unit all monies designated by the State of Washington for teacher salaries while allowing the district to remain in compliance with state salary limitations. Under the terms of the agreement, vocational and adult education teachers (specified as basic education, special needs and E.S.L.) received a 5.5% wage increase retroactive to September 1, 1981. Salaries for community service teachers are not specified in that memorandum. Otterson testified, without contradiction, that she and Reid Stevens, negotiator for the district, were in ongoing discussions about the community service situation at the time the April, 1982 agreement was executed, and that the district refused to discuss wages for community service until resolution of the unit clarification matter.

The Executive Director's order issued on December 10, 1982 in the unit clarification proceeding provided that community service instructors who were not casual employees were included in the bargaining unit certified in 1980. The examiner takes notice of the record and decision in that proceeding, which disclose that the parties stipulated that community service employees were eligible to vote in the election conducted in 1980, that the district set community service salaries on a unilateral basis, and that community service teachers received no other benefits. The union claimed in the unit clarification proceedings that the unit description had always (or at least since 1980) covered community service employees, whereas the district maintained that those employees were never discussed in any prior representation proceeding.

On February 21, 1983, a new collective bargaining agreement was executed between the parties. That agreement specified, for the first time, the inclusion of community service teachers in the bargaining unit and denoted a wage rate for them.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Complainant asserts that community service teachers have been a part of its bargaining unit since December 2, 1980, when it was certified to represent all full-time and regular part-time certificated employees at the VTI. It claims that the district violated the statute by its unilateral transfer of eleven adult and vocational education teachers into the community service function, by its assertion that teachers in that function were not included in the bargaining unit, and by its refusal to bargain about them. It asserts that, since community service teachers were never specifically excluded from its collective bargaining agreements executed after December 2, 1980, teachers in that function are entitled to all benefits negotiated by the union for other unit employees since that date. It further claims that the eleven instructors who were transferred from adult and vocational education into community service are entitled to the benefits negotiated for adult and vocational education teachers retroactive to September 1, 1981.

Respondent admits that it unilaterally transferred the eleven employees in the summer of 1981, and that it unilaterally increased the wage rates for community service teachers and "grandfathered" the salaries of the eleven at about that same time. It asserts that the management rights clause of the collective bargaining agreement in effect at that time gave it the right to transfer those employees without bargaining. It also claims that complainant knew about the respondent's actions in the summer of 1981, and took no action until the filing of the instant unfair labor practice charge in December 1981, even executing contract addenda which failed to include community service teachers. It claims that community service became a part of the unit for the first time with the issuance of the unit clarification decision in December, 1982. With regard to the question of retroactive pay increases for the eleven instructors transferred to community service, it asserts that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider such a remedy in that the Commission has no authority to establish contractual terms which were not agreed to by the parties, and additionally claims that the parties never reached agreement on wage rates for community service teachers until the execution of the existing contract on February 21, 1983.

DISCUSSION

Given the record made by the parties to this proceeding, the question before the examiner becomes not whether the employer violated the statute, but how. If community service employees were part of complainant's bargaining unit as of the 1980 certification, then respondent cannot be guilty of a unilateral removal of bargaining unit work, but certainly dealt directly with bargaining unit employees, and unilaterally set their wages and benefits without negotiation with the exclusive bargaining representative. If, on the other hand, community service employees did not become a part of the bargaining unit until the unit clarification decision in 1982, then the district unilaterally removed bargaining unit work without giving complainant notice or opportunity to bargain. Proceeding from that, there is a question whether complainant waived its statutory bargaining rights by contract or conduct.

Composition of Bargaining Unit

The analysis must begin with the unit composition issue. RCW 41.59.080 provides,

…In determining, modifying or combining the bargaining unit, the commission shall consider the duties, skills, and working conditions of the educational employees; the history of collective bargaining; the extent of organization among the educational employees; and the desire of the educational employees; except that:

(1) A unit including nonsupervisory educational employees shall not be considered appropriate unless it includes all such nonsupervisory educational employees of the employer; and …

(6) A unit that includes only employees in vocational-technical institutes or occupational skill centers may be considered to constitute an appropriate bargaining unit if the history of bargaining in any such school district so justifies…

In matters of unit determination, the Commission is limited, under the unique provisions of RCW 41.59.080, to creation of no more than two appropriate bargaining units which include only nonsupervisory educational employees: one of all such employees employed by a district outside of a vocational-technical institute or occupational skill center, and one of all those employees employed at such a center. No fragmentary unit structure could be appropriate. The Commission is obligated to enforce the mandate of the statute and could not knowingly be a party to creation of a bargaining unit which violates the statute.

The first decision involving certificated employees at the Lake Washington VTI was Lake Washington School District, Decision 484, (EDUC, 1978). The term "vocationally certificated" was used in the proposed unit description, and none of the parties objected to that terminology. The direction of election in that case and the resultant certification therefore speak to "vocationally" certificated employees, as did decisions and certifications at that time involving vocational-technical institutes elsewhere in the state. The loophole created, and the fragmentary unit structure which followed, were identified later. By the time the decision was issued in 1980, ordering an election among adult education employees at the VTI, it is clear that the Commission believed it was dealing with all certificated nonsupervisory VTI employees:

Close analysis of the statute indicates that the adult education employees cannot stand alone as a separate bargaining unit. They are non-supervisory employees and must be included in one of the existing units. The parties have recognized this unique circumstance and have stipulated to a unit preference vote in order to implement the "desires of employees" clause of RCW 41.59.080 and give the affected employees a choice between one of the two existing units. In that the present situation is inappropriate and cannot be continued, there will be no choice on the ballot for a "status quo" or "no representation" possibility,…

Lake Washington School District, Decision 1020 (EDUC, 1980). (emphasis supplied)

If the district was not aware prior to that decision that all nonsupervisory educational employees of the employer had to be included in a bargaining unit if any were, it certainly should have been aware of that requirement after Decision 1020 was issued.[1] Given the unique statutory situation here, and the unit description which clearly includes all full-time and regular part-time certificated employees, it is concluded that certificated teachers in community service were included in complainant's bargaining unit as of December 2, 1980. The district was under an obligation to bargain about them as of that time.

Bargaining Regarding Employee Transfer

Since full-time and regular part-time community service teachers were a part of complainant's bargaining unit as of December 2, 1980, the district's unilateral transfer of vocational and adult education classes to community service could not be a "skimming" or unilateral removal of bargaining unit work, but could constitute a refusal to bargain regarding working conditions.

Respondent would have the examiner find that complainant waived its bargaining rights on the transfer issue by virtue of its agreement to the collective bargaining agreement clauses quoted above. The waiver and complete agreement clauses of the contract do not contain language of sufficient specificity to constitute waiver. City of Kennewick, Decision 482-B (PECB, 1980). Standing alone, the language of the management rights article might appear to contain sufficient specificity to constitute a contract waiver by complainant. Kennewick, supra. Indeed, complainant admits, both in testimony and brief, that that article allows management to transfer employees from building to building, program to program, and class to class. Were the analysis to end here, a contract waiver on this particular aspect of the district actions could be found. However, the wages, benefits, and working conditions of community service employees were never discussed by the parties, either in the original bargaining or in bargaining after the 1980 certification. The record supports a finding that complainant was unaware, even after execution of the addendum to the collective bargaining agreement in 1981, that the district required community service teachers to be certificated. The record is devoid of any evidence that the district provided such information to complainant or that complainant reasonably should have possessed that information. Waivers must be knowingly made. Kennewick, supra. See also Goldendale School District, Decision 1634-A (PECB, 1984), wherein an employer which failed to include a disputed position on a list of employees in a representation proceeding, and claimed subsequently that the union involved had waived its bargaining rights regarding the position, was found guilty of a refusal to bargain. The management rights clause of the collective bargaining agreement can only be said to constitute a waiver by complainant with regard to the transfer of employees among functions known to be part of the bargaining unit at the time of negotiations. Complainant cannot be said to have waived its right to bargain concerning transfers to community service by its agreement to that clause. See, also: City of Seattle, Decision 1667-A, (PECB, 1984).

Circumvention of the Union and Unilateral Changes

Even if one were to accept the district's premise that community service employees were not a part of the bargaining unit until 1982, it is clear that teachers in adult education and vocational education were represented by complainant in the summer and fall of 1981, at the time their transfers were discussed and made effective. The district's memorandum of June 26, 1981 shows that those transfers and the changes in wages which would result were discussed directly with individual bargaining unit employees. The notices of action taken were sent to individual employees. In neither case is there any record that the union was even notified. Respondent admits that it has, until the issuance of the unit clarification decision in December 1982, unilaterally set wages and benefits for community service teachers. It further admits its unilateral "grandfathering" of wage rates and changes in benefit coverage for the eleven teachers transferred into the community service function. Direct dealing with employees, to the exclusion of the employees' exclusive bargaining representative, is a violation. See: Seattle-King County Health Department, Decision 1458 (PECB, 1982) and citations therein.

Presentation to a union of a fait accompli is normally a violation and negates any obligation on the part of the union to request bargaining. See: Renton School District, Decision 1608 (PECB, 1983) and citations therein. In this case, it is not clear that even the unilateral action was ever presented to the union. Respondent's claims of no bargaining obligation because community service was outside the bargaining unit have already been dealt with. Respondent further claims that complainant waived its bargaining rights both by inaction and by its execution of agreements which did not speak to teachers in community service. Respondent brought forward no evidence to support its claim that complainant knew of, but failed to protest, the transfer and unilateral wage setting in the summer of 1981. Complainant's only witness claimed she was unaware of the transfers when they took place or at the time of execution of the 1981 addendum to the collective bargaining agreement. While the record remains unclear as to the possible knowledge by other union agents, respondent carries the burden here. Waiver is an affirmative defense. Complainant is under no obligation to prove lack of waiver. Lakewood School District, Decision 755-A, (PECB, 1980). Five months after the district decision, and approximately three months after implementation, complainant protested the district's action by filing an unfair labor practice complaint. That complaint went to the unilateral transfer and the district's claim that the teachers involved were no longer covered by the contract. Beyond an assertion by complainant that it did not know of the transfers until after their occurrence, the record is devoid of information concerning when complainant knew of the district action. In Renton, supra, the examiner found a union waiver when almost half a year passed after union knowledge of unilateral action before any response was made. When the response in that matter came, however, it came as a protest not to the employer's unilateral action, but to the amount of union dues to be deducted from the disputed employee's salary. Although a period of time passed between implementation and formal protest in this matter, when the protest came it was clearly to the issues currently in dispute.

Respondent's claims of a subsequent contract waiver must also fail. Complainant asserts, without contradiction, that the parties were in discussions regarding community service at the time the 1982 memorandum was executed and the district refused to include them in an agreement until PERC resolved the matter. Respondent concurs that, at least by the time of negotiations for the 1983 agreement, the parties were in ongoing discussions regarding community service. Where, following disagreement over the identity of employees in the bargaining unit, a union agreed to a contract covering only those employees whom the employer admitted were covered by the certification, but continued to discuss its claims to other employees, no waiver was found. Hunt Bros. Construction, Inc., 219 NLRB 34 (1975). Toppenish School District, Decision 1143-A (PECB, 1982) endorses just such a procedure.

Remedy

Where violations of the statute cause loss of benefits to individuals, it is appropriate that those individuals be granted a make-whole remedy. The eleven adult and vocational education teachers who were transferred to community service as a result of the employer's unilateral actions were deprived of their negotiated salary and benefits without bargaining, and, as such, are entitled to that which they would have received had the district not acted illegally. Complainant has not requested a remedy of return of the eleven to the adult or vocational education programs, and it will not be ordered.

The examiner does not find persuasive complainant's assertions that community service teachers are automatically entitled to the same wage increases and changes in benefits as accrued to other bargaining unit employees. Complainant cannot have its case both ways - it cannot claim to have been unaware of the existence of certificated community service employees and not to have bargained about them, and yet claim that because its executed agreement did not specifically exclude community service they must have been included. Additionally, the examiner does not find persuasive complainant's claim that respondent agreed to such increases in the event the Commission found a violation. When certification was issued in 1980, the district was under obligation to bargain concerning community service teachers and to maintain the status quo until agreement or impasse was reached. While wage and benefit increases granted unilaterally thereafter were unlawful, the complainant has not requested a rollback of the wage increase implemented by the district in the summer of 1981, and it will not be ordered. The district will be ordered to bargain regarding the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of the community service teachers, retroactive to December 2, 1980, the date of the certification which included them in complainant's bargaining unit.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  Lake Washington School District is a school district organized under Title 28A. RCW and is an employer within the meaning of RCW 41.59.020(5).

2.                  The Washington Federation of Teachers, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers, is an employee organization within the meaning of RCW 41.59.020(1).

3.                  On December 5, 1978, the Washington Federation of Teachers was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit of all full-time and regular part-time vocationally certificated employees of Lake Washington Vocational Technical Institute. By reason of the use of the term "vocationally certificated" in the description of that bargaining unit, certain non-supervisory certificated employees of the district were improperly excluded from the bargaining unit.

4.                  On February 14, 1980, the Lake Washington School District and the Washington Federation of Teachers executed a collective bargaining agreement for the bargaining unit described in Finding of Fact No. 3. That agreement included a management rights clause which authorized the employer to transfer employees.

5.                  On December 2, 1980, the Washington Federation of Teachers was recertified as the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit described as:

All full-time and regular part-time certificated employees of Lake Washington School District No. 414 employed in its Lake Washington Vocational Technical Institute, including adult education employees. Excluded: Superintendent of Schools, administrative officers, confidential employees, certificated employees in the K-12 program and non-certificated employees.

In the decision leading to that re-certification, the parties were put on notice that a fragmentary bargaining unit structure which allowed some non-supervisory certificated employees to remain unrepresented was inappropriate. The teachers in the Community Services program operated through Lake Washington VTI were eligible voters in the unit determination election conducted by the Commission as a part of those proceedings.

1.                  On August 17, 1981, the Lake Washington School District and the Washington Federation of Teachers executed an addendum to the collective bargaining agreement referred to in Finding of Fact No. 4. The collective bargaining agreement did not make reference to community service teachers.

2.                  In the summer of 1981, the district unilaterally increased the wages of community service teachers, without giving notice to or bargaining with the Washington Federation of Teachers.

3.                  In the summer of 1981, the district discussed with individual adult and vocational education teachers their possible transfer into community service, and changes in working conditions which would result from such a transfer. The union was not notified of or included in such discussions.

4.                  In the fall of 1981, the district unilaterally transferred eleven teachers from adult and vocational education into community service, and unilaterally froze their wages, without giving notice to or bargaining with the Washington Federation of Teachers.

5.                  After the eleven employees had been transferred, the union became aware of their transfer and of the fact that community service teachers were certificated employees. On December 3, 1981, the union filed the instant unfair labor practice charges and concurrently filed a unit clarification petition regarding community service teachers.

6.                  On April 1, 1982, the parties executed a memorandum agreement regarding salary rates for all certificated VTI staff for whom the district received state funding. Community service teachers were not referred to in that document. At the time the agreement was executed the parties were in discussions regarding community service, but the district refused to discuss their wages until resolution of the unit clarification matter.

7.                  On December 10, 1982, a unit clarification decision determined that full-time and regular part-time certificated community service teachers were included in the bargaining unit referred to in Findings of Fact No. 5.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.                  The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Chapter 41.59 RCW.

2.                  The bargaining unit described in Finding of Fact No. 5, above, is an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of RCW 41.59.080, which included all full-time and regular part-time certificated community service teachers from date of certification on December 2, 1980.

3.                  By refusing to bargain with the exclusive bargaining representative regarding certificated teachers in the community service function, the district has violated RCW 41.59.140(1)(e) and (a).

4.                  By dealing directly with bargaining unit employees concerning changes in their wages and working conditions in the absence of their exclusive bargaining representative, the district has violated RCW 41.59.140(1)(e) and (a).

5.                  By its unilateral transfer of eleven certificated employees from vocational and adult education to community service and change of their working conditions without giving notice and opportunity to bargain to their exclusive bargaining representative, the district has violated RCW 41.59.140(1)(e) and (a).

ORDER

Upon the basis of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and pursuant to RCW 41.59.150 of the Educational Employment Relations Act, it is ordered that the Lake Washington School District, its officers and agents, shall immediately:

1          Cease and desist from:

a.       Refusing to bargain collectively with the Washington Federation of Teachers as the exclusive bargaining representative of all of its full-time and regular part-time certificated employees at the Lake Washington Vocational Technical Institute, regarding employees in the community service function.

b.      Negotiating directly with individual employees represented by the Washington Federation of Teachers, with respect to wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.

c.       Refusing to bargain collectively with the Washington Federation of Teachers as the exclusive bargaining representative of its full-time and regular part-time certificated employees at the Lake Washington Vocational Technical Institute, by unilaterally implementing changes in the wages and working conditions of bargaining unit employees.

2          Take the following affirmative actions to remedy the unfair labor practices and effectuate the policies of the Act:

a.                   Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Washington Federation of Teachers regarding the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment on and after December 2, 1980 of teachers in the community service function at the Lake Washington Vocational Technical Institute.

b.                  Make whole the eleven employees transferred from adult and vocational education to community service by reimbursing them for any loss in pay or benefits they may have suffered by such action, by paying them the sum of money they would normally have earned or received since date of transfer had they not been transferred, less any wages and benefits earned or received as a community service teacher. Such remedy shall be subject to computation and payment of interest as provided in WAC 391-45-410.

c.                   Post, in conspicuous places on the employer's premises where notices to all employees are usually posted, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix "A". Such notices shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Lake Washington School District, be and remain posted for sixty (60) days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Lake Washington School District to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by other material.

d.                  Notify the Executive Director of the Commission, in writing, within twenty (20) days following the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith, and at the same time provide the Executive Director with a signed copy of the notice required by the preceding paragraph.

DATED at Olympia, Washington, this 2nd day of March, 1984.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARTHA M. NICOLOFF, Examiner