DECISIONS

The complaint charging unfair labor practices in the above-captioned matter was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission on June 10, 1991. The matter came before the Executive Director for a preliminary ruling pursuant to WAC 391-45-110, and a letter issued to the parties on January 7, 1992 pointed out certain defects which precluded further processing of the complaint, as filed. The complainant was allowed 14 days to file and serve an amended complaint. Nothing further has been heard or received from the complainant.

The dispute arises out of an employment relationship involving the Spokane School District, but only Local 280 is named as a respondent.[1] The first four paragraphs of the statement of facts indicate that Local 280 was formerly the exclusive bargaining representative of employees now represented by the complainant, and that the complainant and employer negotiated a tentative agreement. Those allegations are taken to be merely background material.

The complaint takes issue with a letter sent by Local 280 to bargaining unit employees in advance of a contract ratification vote scheduled for May of 1991. It alleges that the letter constituted an unlawful interference with the rights of employees and/or of the current exclusive bargaining representative.[2]

The preliminary ruling letter noted that the Commission has not undertaken to pass judgment on every word used in connection with collective bargaining, instead recognizing that parties have some “free speech” rights. Even in the context of election campaigns, where “laboratory conditions” are maintained, curtailment of free speech is limited to situations where reply is impossible,[3] and to the types of communications that would constitute an unfair labor practice.[4] Further, the preliminary ruling letter noted that close analysis of the disputed letter failed to disclose any material that could reasonably be perceived by employees as threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefit:

The first numbered paragraph refers to the length of time taken to negotiate a contract, and to campaign promises made and fulfilled;

The second numbered paragraph and two unnumbered paragraphs which follow attribute a statement to a union official by means of an un-named intermediary employee, compares the

incumbent’s procedures to the author’s procedures, and again cites the time taken to negotiate the contract;

The third numbered paragraph refers to participation by the incumbent’s affiliates in a work stoppage that was not protected by the collective bargaining statute applicable to those employees; [a footnote cited Concrete School District, Decision 1059 (EDUC, 1980)] and

The fourth numbered paragraph urges a “no” vote by employees.

None of the statements in the letter threatened the employment or physical well-being of any employee, and the true intention of the respondent seems clear from two paragraphs which announced that Local 280 would file a representation petition for the bargaining unit in September of 1991, if there was no contract in effect.

Assuming all of the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and provable, it does not appear that any unfair labor practice could be found against the respondent for its exercise of free speech or its use of the procedures set forth in the statute.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

The complaint charging unfair labor practices filed in the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.

Issued at Olympia, Washington, the 4th day of March, 1992.

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.