Ilse Benson filed the original complaint charging unfair labor practices in Case 8599-U-90-1868 on May 16, 1990. Chief of Police Richard Lang of the City of Poulsbo was named as respondent. That complaint was returned to the complainant for signature.

A signed complaint filed by Benson on May 24, 1990 named the representative of Teamsters Local 589, Doug Bush, as respondent.

The matter came before the Executive Director for a preliminary ruling pursuant to WAC 391-45-110. A letter dated October 12, 1990 reviewed the allegations of the complaint and concluded that the complaint did not state a claim for relief available through the procedures of the Public Employment Relations Commission. The complainant was given 14 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint. That time period was later extended.

Ilse Benson filed an amended complaint on November 5, 1990. The mayor of the City of Poulsbo, Mitch Mitchusson, was named as a respondent along with the police chief and union representative previously named.[1]

The amended complaint(s) filed on November 5, 1990 are now before the Executive Director for a preliminary ruling pursuant to WAC 391-45-110. It is assumed at this stage of the proceedings that all of the facts alleged are true and provable. A question remains as to whether an unfair labor practice violation could be found.

From a copy of a collective bargaining agreement provided previously, it appears that Teamsters Local 589 is the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit limited to "permanent full-time" employees of the City of Poulsbo.

Paragraphs I. and II. describe the beginning of the complainant's employment with the City of Poulsbo, starting as a part-time employee in April of 1985, and discussion of an opportunity for more work hours some time in the future.

Paragraph III. alleges that the complainant was required to "pay into union retirement" while working full-time "under union rules" for an unspecified period "in 1988". The previous documents had described this as "temporary" work to cover a maternity leave, and it is inferred that it was separate and apart from Ms. Benson's original part-time job.

Paragraph IV. describes a false start on increased work hours which occurred and was withdrawn in late 1986 and early 1987.

Paragraph V. recites a refusal of representation by the union on an unspecified date in 1989. The earlier documents mention a similar transaction during or about October of 1989, but the precise nature of the request for representation is not set forth.

Paragraphs VI. and VII. allege that the police chief made a number of promises about securing the complainant a full-time position, and that Benson thereupon incurred expenses to take computer classes in reliance on those promises.

Paragraph VIII. concerns statements made by the police chief during a finance meeting held on an unspecified date "late in 1989". The complainant's interest in a full-time position is alleged to have been concealed or misstated.

Paragraphs IX. and X. concern a job interview which occurred in January of 1990, at which time the police chief was unable or unwilling to provide a job description for the position.

Paragraphs XI., XII. and XIII. protest the selection of another individual for the full-time job and the termination of the complainant's part-time employment.

Paragraphs XIV. and XV. recite that a member of the Poulsbo City Council both recalled the police chief's misstatement of Ms. Benson's interest in a full-time position and recommended that she file unfair labor practice charges.

Statute of Limitations

RCW 41.56.160 provides that "a complaint shall not be processed for any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months before the filing of the complaint with the commission". Many of the transactions described in the complaint and amended complaint occurred far beyond the six-month period for which these unfair labor practice charges can be considered "timely". Thus:

Enforcement of the promises alleged in Paragraphs I. and II. would be complicated by the passage of time, even if they otherwise stated a claim for relief.

Apart from the fact that the complainant's coverage for full-time benefits alleged in paragraph III. could well have been appropriate for an employee holding a full-time job, consideration of the situation is barred by the six-month limitation.

Consideration of the merits of the false start at a full-time job in 1986 and 1987 is also barred by the six-month limitation.

Inclusion in the Bargaining Unit

A union has the obligation (and right) to represent only those who are within the bargaining unit for which it is recognized or certified as "exclusive bargaining representative". Commission precedent indicates that "regular part-time" employees are commonly included in the same bargaining units with full-time employees performing similar work, while employees having only a "casual" employment relationship are routinely excluded from bargaining units.[2] Employers and unions are permitted, however, to make reasonable and non-discriminatory agreements defining the borders of bargaining units.

The context of this case indicates that Ms. Benson was not within the group of "permanent full-time" employees represented by the union. The complainant's reliance on City of Bellingham, Decision 792 (PECB, 1979); Othello School District (Public School Employees of Washington), Decision 3037 (PECB, 1988) and King County, Decision 1675 (PECB, 1983) is not persuasive. There is no allegation from which to infer that the exclusion of Benson's part-time position from the bargaining unit was unreasonable or discriminatory.[3]

Enforcement of Promise to Hire

The unfair labor practice provisions of RCW 41.56.140 and .150 regulate and protect the process of collective bargaining set forth in Chapter 41.56 RCW. While its name might lead some to assume that it has a broader range of authority, the Public Employment Relations Commission is not authorized or empowered to resolve each and every type of dispute arising out of "employment relations" in the public sector.

In particular, the Commission does not assert jurisdiction to enforce collective bargaining agreements through the unfair labor practice provisions of Chapter 41.56 RCW.[4] There is certainly no basis to conclude that the Commission could, or should, assert jurisdiction to enforce promises made by public employers to individual employees in the course of their employment. The enforcement of any promises, and remedies for any reliance upon such promises, would need to come through a lawsuit in the courts.

Review of Employer Personnel Practices

The inability or unwillingness of the police chief to provide a job description to the complainant during an interview may not be a textbook example of good personnel practices, but that does not vest the Commission with jurisdiction to review the transaction. Similarly, the Commission is not empowered to review or overturn the employer's procedures for notice of the full-time vacancy, its assessment of the relative qualifications among the applicants, or its termination of the complainant's employment.

In particular, there is no allegation or evidence of anti-union animus on the part of the employer which would bring the matter within the coverage of RCW 41.56.040. The concurrence of one of the employer's elected officials, or even a majority of them, could not vest the Commission with jurisdiction that is lacking under the statute that establishes the Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

The complaints charging unfair labor practices in the above-captioned matters are DISMISSED as failing to state claims for relief available through the procedures of the Public Employment Relations Commission.

Dated at Olympia, Washington, the 19th day of March, 1991.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARVIN L. SCHURKE Executive Director

This order may be appealed by filing a petition for review with the Commission pursuant to WAC 391-45-350.