On April 22, 1992, Amy L. Boardman filed three complaints charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission.[1] The complaint docketed as Case 9772-U-92-2222 claimed that the City of Tacoma had committed an unfair labor practice in violation of RCW 41.56.140(3).

The matter came before the Executive Director for initial processing pursuant to WAC 391-45-110,[2] and a preliminary ruling letter issued on May 21, 1992 noted certain problems with the complaint, as filed.

The City of Tacoma is a “public employer” within the meaning and coverage of the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act, Chapter 41.56 RCW.

The Tacoma Police Union, Local 6, is the exclusive bargaining representative of non-supervisory law enforcement personnel of the City of Tacoma.

The complainant was formerly a police officer employed by the City of Tacoma. It appears that she was discharged from that employment after undergoing a drug test. The allegations of her complaint concern an alleged “unilateral change” in working conditions made by the employer with respect to drug testing procedures. That change was allegedly made while the employer was in the midst of negotiations with the union which represents the city’s police officers.

A “unilateral change” occurs when an employer or union engaged in a collective bargaining relationship effects a change of employee wages, hours or working conditions without having given notice of the contemplated change to the opposite party and provided opportunity for good faith bargaining, on request, prior to the actual implementation of the change. The preliminary ruling letter noted that, while the Public Employment Relations Commission regulates the duty to bargain under Chapter 41.56 RCW, that duty exists only between an employer and the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees.

An individual employee lacks legal standing to file a “refusal to bargain” unfair labor practice claim. Grant County, Decision 2703 (PECB, 1987). Therefore, the complainant was informed that it did not appear that she had a cause of action in this case.

The complainant was given a period of 14 days following the preliminary ruling letter in which to file and serve an amended complaint which stated a cause of action, or face dismissal of her claim. Nothing further has been received from the complainant.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

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

DATED at Olympia, Washington, this 12th day of November, 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.