|
STATE OF WASHINGTON BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION |
|
|
BILL J. DICKSON, |
|
|
Complainant, |
CASE 9473-U-91-2111 |
|
vs. |
DECISION 4107 - PECB |
|
PORT OF SEATTLE, |
ORDER OF DISMISSAL |
|
Respondent. |
|
|
KEITH G. JOHNSON, |
|
|
Complainant, |
CASE 9474-U-91-2112 |
|
vs. |
DECISION 4108 - PECB |
|
PORT OF SEATTLE, |
ORDER OF DISMISSAL |
|
Respondent. |
|
|
THOMAS C. WESTON, |
|
|
Complainant, |
CASE 9484-U-91-2113 |
|
vs. |
DECISION 4109 - PECB |
|
PORT OF SEATTLE, |
ORDER OF DISMISSAL |
|
Respondent. |
|
On November 12, 1991, Bill J. Dickson filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission, alleging "employer interference with employee rights" and "other unfair labor practice" by the Port of Seattle (Case 9473-U-91-2111). On November 12, 1991, Keith G. Johnson filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Commission, alleging "employer interference with employee rights" by the Port of Seattle (Case 9474-U-91-2112). On November 13, 1991, Thomas C. Weston filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Commission, naming the Port of Seattle as respondent but not specifying the nature of the violation (Case 9484-U-91-2113) . All three cases concern "holiday pay" benefits which the complainants claim to have lost in a transition of their bargaining unit from one contract to another.[1] The remedy requested is that the employer pay the holiday pay claimed by the employees.
The matter came before the Executive Director for a preliminary ruling pursuant to WAC 391-45-110.[2] Preliminary ruling letters were directed to each of these complainants on May 5, 1992, pointing out a number of problems with the complaints, as filed. Each complainant was given 14 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint, or face dismissal of the cases for failure to state a cause of action. Nothing further has been heard or received from any of the complainants.
The Public Employment Relations Commission does not assert jurisdiction to remedy violations of collective bargaining agreements through the unfair labor practice provisions of the statute. City of Walla Walla. Decision 104 (PECB, 1976). If any vested rights to the claimed "holiday" time or pay existed as the result of the former collective bargaining agreement, a remedy would have to be obtained through the grievance procedure of that contract or through the courts.
The Public Employment Relations Commission does regulate the duty to bargain, but that duty exists only between an employer and the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees. An individual employee lacks legal "standing" to file or pursue a "refusal to bargain" unfair labor practice claim. Grant County, Decision 2703 (PECB, 1987) . A "unilateral change" of the type alleged in this case is merely a sub-type of "refusal to bargain" conduct, and could only be pursued by the union.[3]
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The complaint charging unfair labor practices in each of the above-captioned matters is DISMISSED, for failure to state a cause of action.
Entered at Olympia, Washington, on the 15th day of June, 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.
[1] The complaints indicates that the complainants are represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by IBEW Local 46. The bargaining unit was formerly covered by a contract between the Port of Seattle and Local 46 as part of the Seattle Building and Construction Trades Council, which included a provision for accumulation of holiday pay. The complaints allege that the employer took steps to become a party to a master contract negotiated by the National Electrical Contractors Association, which does not have similar provisions for holiday pay.
[2] At this stage of the proceedings, all of the facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true and provable. The question at hand is whether, as a matter of law, the complaint states a claim for relief available through unfair labor practice proceedings before the Public Employment Relations Commission.
[3] The preliminary ruling letter advised the complainants that the Commission's docket records disclose that the union had filed unfair labor practice charges against the Port of Seattle in connection with the expiration of the contract and the employer's desire to adopt a different contract, but that those unfair labor practice charges had since been withdrawn on the basis of a settlement reached by the parties in bargaining. The complainants were advised to get in contact with IBEW Local 46 about the terms of any such settlement.