STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSCOMMISSION
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2950,
	CASE11480-U-94-2691
Complainant,
vs.	DECISION 5352-PECB
KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 36,	FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
Respondent.

Webster, Mrak & Blumberg, by James H. Webster, appeared on behalf of the union.

Perkins Coie, by Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth, appeared on behalf of the employer.

On December 16, 1994, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2950, filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission alleging King County Fire Protection District 36 had interfered with employee rights and unlawfully refused to bargain. [1] Specifically, the complaint alleged the employer had unlawfully skimmed bargaining unit work when it assigned fire inspection duties outside the bargaining unit despite the union's objection and request for bargaining. Pamela G. Bradburn was designated as Examiner to conduct further proceedings pursuant to Chapter 391-45 WAC. A hearing was held before the Examiner on May 17, 1995, in Seattle, Washington. Both parties filed briefs by August 11, 1995.

BACKGROUND

King County Fire Protection District 3 6 is situated in and around a portion of the county that incorporated as the city of Woodinville effective March 31, 1993. Jim Davis has been the employer's fire chief since 1989, and Steve Smith has been its deputy chief and fire marshall since 1988 .

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2950, represents a bargaining unit of "all full-time uniformed employees of the Fire District except Battalion Chief, Deputy Chief, and Fire Chief. "[2]Kerry Langan has been local union president since January 1994; Scott Rykers was his predecessor in that position during the relevant period.

Nature of Disputed Work

The work at issue in this proceeding is fire investigation and inspection. [3] Duties include the inspection of premises to determine whether they qualify for dangerous activities requiring occupancy permits. [4] Occasional enforcement actions are required when owners do not comply with the pertinent fire or building codes. Premises are inspected for fire risks, and records of inspections are kept. Plans for new construction and remodels are reviewed to determine whether they meet fire and safety codes.

Fires of suspicious origin are investigated. Several of these duties may be performed in cooperation with other employers.

History of Inspection/Investigation Work

During the entire relevant period:

*one or two percent of the inspections have been performed by officers outside the bargaining unit, either on their own initiative or at the request of an inspector;

*an indeterminate amount of the fire investigation work has been done by Deputy Chief and Fire Marshall Steve Smith, and

*bargaining unit members assigned to engine companies have inspected the less complex occupancies. [5]

Before October 1991 -

It is undisputed that a non-bargaining unit employee, Mike Gale, performed most of the fire investigation work and the more complex fire inspection work done by the district from some indefinite time until October 1991. [6] The job description identified Gale's position as "Fire Inspector/Investigator (Civilian)". Listed duties include inspection and reinspection of all types of occupancies, working with the county on code enforcement and on reviewing plans for new and remodel construction, investigating fires, training fire fighters and the public, and maintaining fire prevention bureau records. Fire Fighter Joel Kuhnhenn was interested in fire investigation and inspection work, and often accompanied Gale.

October 1991 to Incorporation -

When Kuhnhenn learned Gale would be leaving his position, Kuhnhenn expressed his interest in the work to then-union President Rykers. A new position was negotiated between Rykers, Wally Holstad, and Kerry Langan for the union, with Smith and Battalion Chief Phil Page representing the employer. [7] The fire fighter/inspector position is described only in an October 15, 1991 addendum to the collective bargaining agreement. [8] The position would be filled by bargaining unit members only, who would maintain fire fighting and emergency medical treatment readiness during their two year stint away from fire suppression duties. [9] The employer was given power to appoint someone to the position for one year if no one applied.

Now the parties disagree whether creation of this new bargaining unit position had any effect on the continued existence of the previous non-bargaining unit position. The union contends negotiation of the fire fighter/inspector position transformed the work into bargaining unit work. The employer argues the civilian job was not eliminated by creation of the bargaining unit position, noting the union did not ask for the elimination of Gale's old job, nor did the employer agree to eliminate it.

Kuhnhenn received the fire fighter/inspector position when Gale left. He prioritized the occupancy inspections and, like Gale, performed the more complex ones himself and let the engine companies perform the more routine inspections. On occasion, he asked Davis, Smith, or Page for help when he encountered problems such as an impasse with a business owner or a technical question of code interpretation. As had been the case with Gale, the King County Fire Marshall occasionally asked Kuhnhenn's assistance in fire investigations, and Kuhnhenn cooperated with the county in code enforcement actions.

Within half a year, it became apparent there was not enough time in a week for Kuhnhenn to perform the inspection and investigation work while also maintaining his fire suppression and EMT skills. In addition, the employer knew its responsibilities would expand when Woodinville's incorporation became effective. Accordingly, the parties negotiated a job description and contract addendum for a Uniformed Fire Inspector/Investigator. [10]Langan, Al Nicholas, and Greg Ahern represented the union in these negotiations, while Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall Smith represented the employer.

Langan described the parties' agreed goal as a full-time and long-term bargaining unit inspector/investigator who would be able to concentrate on that work without the distraction of maintaining fire suppression skills. Langan said the parties initially disagreed over whether applicants for the position would be accepted from outside the bargaining unit: the union wanted the position to be promotional only, while the employer wanted to test outside candidates. The result of the negotiations was that only bargaining unit members could test for the position, and the union agreed to work with the employer to fill the position if a situation arose when no bargaining unit applicants were qualified. [11]

Again, the parties' present view of the effects of creating the inspector/investigator position differ. The union sees it as confirmation that the inspection and investigation work belongs to the bargaining unit, while the employer notes that the job is defined as "uniformed" to distinguish it from the civilian position Gale once held. Fire Chief Davis believes that, as long as the job description for Gale's position remains in the employer's operations manual, he has the authority without negotiations to decide whether the civilian or bargaining unit job description is to be filled. [12]

Applicants tested for the position and Kuhnhenn was awarded it on February 16, 1993.

Incorporation to November 20, 1994-

Woodinville incorporated effective March 31, 1993, and thus inherited from the county the responsibility of reviewing plans for new businesses within its boundaries. The new city promptly contracted those duties to the employer. Now Kuhnhenn had to review plans and determine what permits were required and whether fire alarm and sprinkler systems met codes, as well as continue to perform the inspections during construction and the other duties of his former position. This was a significant change; when the county had borne primary responsibility for plan review, Gale and Kuhnhenn's review was pro forma because permits had often been issued by the time they saw the plans.

Although plan reviews were the only additional responsibility resulting from the incorporation, high growth rates within the new city increased the number of plans to be reviewed. Wally Holstad was appointed the second inspector/investigator shortly after incorporation. Even with two full-time inspector/investigators and Deputy Chief Smith's help, most of the inspections were left for the engine companies to perform. The press of the engine companies' other work eventually meant inspections were not being performed annually, as was the employer's goal. Smith determined 2 5 to 3 0 hours more per week of work needed to be done.

At some unidentified time, an unidentified person drafted a job description for a part-time civilian fire inspector/investigator position. [13] The employer's board of commissioners voted September 6, 1994, to fill this position; the union learned of the action at that meeting and requested bargaining. Davis agreed to listen to the union's concerns but rejected its contention this was a matter for negotiations.

Davis and Smith met with union President Langan about October 20, 1994 . Langan claimed the work for the bargaining unit and Davis denied the employer had ever agreed the work was solely unit work. Langan argued there was enough extra work to justify an additional full-time position. When Davis asserted only part-time work was available, Langan recalled suggesting the employer either take applications for or appoint a fire fighter/inspector who could spend 3 0 hours weekly on inspections;[14] Davis denied the union made such a proposal. The parties agree the union suggested using a full-time employee or existing employees on overtime to perform the extra inspection work, which the employer found too expensive and unwieldy. Langan testified Davis said he might have to evaluate whether there would be any uniformed inspector/investigators at all, if the union persisted; Langan interpreted the statement as a threat. Davis did not recall making a threat of that nature, and denied taking any steps to eliminate Kuhnhenn and Holstad's positions.

The employer transferred Dwight Schultz on November 20, 1994, from a part-time maintenance position to the part-time civilian inspector/investigator job. [15] Schultz had spent 23 years at Kirkland's fire department, the last four as fire marshall. His experience with inspections was from participating in engine company inspections when he began at Kirkland. Davis explained he preferred to hire Schultz because he was available immediately for part-time work and had experience, and contended the existing civilian job description gave him the power to do so.

After November 20, 1994-

Schultz works primarily on inspections. He has taken over some of the inspections previously done by engine companies, as well as some inspections Kuhnhenn and Holstad had been doing. This has freed Kuhnhenn and Holstad to perform their plan reviews in a more timely fashion. Schultz has not been asked to review plans prior to construction, nor did Kuhnhenn think Schultz was on the list for fire investigations . The record does not clearly indicate whether Kuhnhenn and Holstad continue to perform any inspections.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The union contends the parties agreed fire inspection/investigation would be bargaining unit work when they negotiated the fire fighter/inspector and the uniformed fire inspector/investigator positions. The union reasons that, if the employer had actually retained the right to unilaterally fill Gale's old position, the parties would not have wasted time discussing what would happen if there were no qualified inside applicants for the uniformed fire inspector/investigator position. The union asserts Schultz has been performing work which the employer has skimmed from the bargaining unit in violation of its bargaining obligations.

The employer contends the union must prove it persuaded the employer to abolish the civilian inspector/investigator position in order to establish that fire inspection/investigation is bargaining unit work. The employer argues the union cannot sustain this burden because the evidence demonstrates the civilian job description remained in the operations manual, and officers outside the bargaining unit have consistently performed some inspections.

DISCUSSION

Appropriate Legal Standard

The employer suggests the appropriate legal standard for this case is the balancing test articulated in IAFF, Local 1052 v. PERC, 113 Wn. 2d 197, 203 (1989). The employer errs. The IAFF, Local 1052 balancing test is applied to determine whether an employer must negotiate with a union over a particular subject (that is, whether a particular subject is a mandatory subject of bargaining). The balancing test is not applicable here because this is not a dispute over scope of bargaining. The agency has held from its infancy that the transfer of bargaining unit work to persons outside the bargaining unit is a mandatory subject of bargaining. South Kitsap School District, Decision 472 (PECB, 1978); City of Kennewick, Decision 482-B(PECB, 1980) .

The appropriate approach to this case is a two step analysis:

(1)                    Is the fire inspection and investigation work bargaining unit work?

(2)                    If so, is the employer obliged to bargain before transferring it outside the bargaining unit?[16]

The first question is answered by a simple factual analysis: was the work in dispute performed at any time by bargaining unit members? Whether it has also been performed by persons outside the bargaining unit is irrelevant at this point in the analysis. Spokane Fire Protection District 9, supra.

Answering the second question involves several factual issues:

1. The employer's previously established operating practice as to the work in question, i. e. , had non-bargaining unit personnel performed such work before;[17]

2. Did the transfer of work involve a significant detriment to bargaining unit members (as by changing conditions of employment or significantly impairing job tenure or reasonably anticipated work opportunities);

3. Was the employer's motivation solely economic ;

4. Had there been an opportunity to bargain generally about the changes in existing practices; and

5 . Was the work fundamentally different from regular bargaining unit work in terms of the nature of the duties, skills, or working conditions.

Spokane Fire Protection District 9, supra, citing Clover Park School District, Decision 2560-B(PECB, 1988).

Application of Legal Standard

Fire Inspection/Investigation Is Bargaining Unit Work –

The following facts are undisputed:

*bargaining unit members assigned to engine companies have historically performed, and continue to perform, inspections of some permitted occupancies;

*since October 1991, bargaining unit members have performed fire investigations and inspections of more complex permitted occupancies;

*since October 1991, bargaining unit members have cooperated with the county on code enforcement actions and in some fire investigations;

*since October 1991, bargaining unit members have produced and maintained fire prevention bureau records;

*since October 1991, bargaining unit members have participated in or been wholly responsible for reviewing plans of new construction for code compliance, as well as making inspections at construction sites, and

*Gale's, Kuhnhenn's, and Schultz's job descriptions are virtually identical, with differences resulting primarily from a rearrangement of common elements.

It is also undisputed that officers outside the bargaining unit have performed, and continue to perform, a tiny percentage of inspections and an unknown portion of the fire investigation work. Neither this fact nor the continued presence of the civilian inspector/investigator job description in the operations manual preclude the conclusion that the employer's actions have made the work of fire prevention and investigation into bargaining unit work.

Several Commission decisions support this conclusion. In Pierce County Fire District 9, Decision 4547 (PECB, 1993) , job descriptions and testimony that paramedics had been "involved" in EMS training was sufficient to establish that such training was bargaining unit work. [18] The Commission concluded in Spokane Fire Protection District 9, supra, that standing by at a fire station was bargaining unit work because off-duty bargaining unit members were occasionally called in to perform it, regardless of a longstanding practice of seeking non-bargaining unit volunteers first.

The fact that pending new work was similar to that being done by bargaining unit members gave the union a claim to the new work even though the new work was also similar to work that had historically been contracted to outsiders. Community Transit, Decision 3069 (PECB, 1988) . This theory is buttressed by Battle Ground School District, Decision 2449-A (PECB, 1986), and City of Kennewick, supra; both hold that bargaining unit work includes work that has been done, or could be done, by bargaining unit members.

The Examiner concludes the union has satisfied the first step of the appropriate legal analysis; fire inspection and investigation is bargaining unit work.

Work Was Performed Outside Bargaining Unit -

The record clearly demonstrates that most of the work performed since October 1991 by bargaining unit members had previously been done outside the bargaining unit by Gale. The only substantive difference between Gale's work and that performed by Kuhnhenn and Holstadisa matter of degree;when Gale was doing plan reviews prior to the incorporation, the work was pro forma in that permits had often been granted by the county before the plans were reviewed at the district. After incorporation, Kuhnhenn and Holstad were the only people checking planned construction within Woodinville's boundaries for conformance to codes.

Contrary to other cases, the existence of this past practice contains no hint of union waiver of a claim to the work, since work outside the bargaining unit both preceded, and was completely replaced by, the bargaining unit's performance of the work. See, Battle Ground School District, supra.

Transfer of Work a Significant Detriment to Bargaining Unit–

The transfer of fire inspection work to Schultz poses two significant risks to the bargaining unit. The first is the loss of potential work and the opportunity for advancement. The inspector/investigator position is promotional for those bargaining unit members in positions up to and including senior fire fighter. The bargaining unit's interest in the inspector/investigator position is indicated by the fact that some 10 or 15 bargaining unit members have the ICBO certification required for the position, and that the two existing positions were filled with no difficulty. The Examiner concludes the record demonstrates an actual and present loss of work opportunities, rather than the future or theoretical loss deemed sufficient in some cases. See, Battle Ground School District, supra, at p. 11-12, and Seattle Police Management Association, Decision 4163(PECB, 1992), at p. 24-25.

The second risk to the bargaining unit posed by the employer's action was articulated by Fire Chief Davis as follows:

Q. [By Mr. Webster] Do I understand that if you wish to fill a position of Inspector/ Investigator you can pick at will whether it will be civilian or uniformed and you're bound to assign someone from the bargaining unit only in the event that you happen to choose it's uniformed?

A. [By Mr. Davis] If the position that is being hired is chosen to be a uniformed position, then the agreement is in place to do that per this addendum [the parties' agreement creating the inspector/ investigator position] , as far as the position of fire inspector within the bargaining unit. If the position is a civilian position, then I do not have to bargain that with the bargaining unit.

Q. And that's up to you to choose which it's going to be?

A. That's correct.

Q. So if Mr. Holstad retired or went back to the -- requested to go back to a [fire fighter] position, you'd be free to, as you've explained it, not to replace that with someone out of the bargaining unit but rather just to hire a civilian? Do I understand correctly?

A. That's correct.

Q. That means that you could actually -actually you have the authority under this addendum [dealing with the inspector/investigator] to send people back to the bargaining unit or back to the Suppression, don't you? They get to keep their rank. Look at Section II (b) . That gives management the authority to return an Inspector/Investigator to Suppression duties at the district's discretion, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you could, tomorrow, tell Mr. Kuhnhenn and Mr. Holstad that in the district's discretion they're being returned back to Suppression and you're going to just hire civilians to do this job. You have that discretion as you understand it; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Transcript, p. 132-133.

Davis claimed this power to unilaterally determine whether to use a bargaining unit person or a non-bargaining unit person for fire inspection and investigation work derived not from the collective bargaining agreement, but from the continued existence of the job description of Gale's civilian position. Transcript, p. 128. At this point in the analysis, it is sufficient to conclude that both the employer's action of creating a part-time civilian inspector, and its rationale for its action, constitute a threat to the work and continued existence of the bargaining unit.

Employer's Motivation Economic -

A close reading of Spokane Fire Protection District 9, supra, indicates that the third factor scrutinizes the employer's justification for its actions to determine whether the employer was seeking to achieve an economic goal, responding to a perceived emergency, or had some other motivation. Here, the first of the employer's two reasons was a desire to save money. An intent to reduce spending is not accepted as justifying a transfer of bargaining unit work without negotiations. Spokane Fire Protection District 9, supra.

The employer's second reason was the need for a qualified employee who could be productive immediately. The record simply does not bear out the employer's claim that Schultz was immediately capable of all fire inspection duties while no bargaining unit member was. [19] The paucity of information about Schultz in the record is notable. The total evidence is: he worked from 1968 to 1991 for Kirkland's fire department, the last four years as its fire marshall; he spent an undetermined amount of time when he was first employed at Kirkland performing inspections;[20] in 1994 Schultz was doing maintenance work for the employer, and Kuhnhenn understood

Schultz lacked the ICBO certification held by Holstad, Kuhnhenn, and 10 or more other bargaining unit members. [21] The Examiner is not persuaded by this record that Schultz was able to achieve productivity performing inspections substantially more quickly than a qualified bargaining unit member could have. This justification for the employer's action does not excuse it from its legal obligation to bargain with the union before removing bargaining unit work.

No Prior Opportunity to Bargain -

The union learned the employer was contemplating hiring a part-time civilian fire inspector when the employer decided, through its board of commissioners, to fill the position. Although Schultz did not actually take the position until several months after it was authorized, the employer refused to negotiate about the subject during the interim. Thus, the employer presented the union with a fait accompli.

Work Sufficiently Similar to Bargaining Unit Work –

The only difference between Schultz's work and the bargaining unit inspection/investigation work is that Schultz works part-time. The only evidence in the record on the length of Schultz's work week is Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall Smith's estimate before the position was created that there was another 25 to 30 hours per week of inspection work to be done. Although the bargaining unit presently comprises full-time employees only, [22]Langan testified the fire fighter/investigator had spent approximately 30 to 35 hours per week on inspections and investigations, with the remainder taken up by activities designed to maintain firefighting skills. Whether the fire fighter/investigator position was to be revived, or the bargaining unit was to be expanded to include a part-time inspector/investigator, are issues for bargaining by the parties. The part-time inspector/investigator work was similar enough to bargaining unit work to give rise to a duty to bargain.

Conclusion on Bargaining Obligation -

The union has satisfied its burden of proving that the part-time fire inspection work that has been performed by Schultz was work that had been done previously by bargaining unit members, and that, in the circumstances of the present case, the employer had a duty to bargain with the union before transferring that work outside the bargaining unit.

Interference Violation

The union's complaint charging unfair practices alleged the employer had unlawfully interfered with employee rights in addition to refusing to bargain. Such interference violations are often derived from refusal to bargain violations. Lake Washington Technical College, Decision 4721-A (PECB, 1995), at p. 17-18.

In the circumstances of this case, the Examiner finds independent grounds in the comments of Fire Chief Davis quoted above for concluding the employer has interfered with employee rights protected by Chapter 41. 56 RCW. These rights are granted for remedial purposes and are, therefore, to be liberally interpreted. IAFF, Local 469 v. City of Yakima, 91 Wn. 2d 101 (1978). Furthermore, contrary statutes are subordinate to both these statutory rights and the collective bargaining agreements negotiated pursuant to them. Rose v. Erickson, 106 Wn. 2d 420 (1986) . These rights are not extinguished by an employer's unilateral removal or retention of a job description from its operations manual, according to its whim. [23]

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  King County Fire District 36 is an employer within the meaning of RCW 41. 56. 030 (1) .

2.                  International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2950, a bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW 41. 56. 030-(3) represents an appropriate bargaining unit of full-time uniformed employees of the employer.

3.                  Before October 1991, a non-bargaining unit employee performed most of the fire inspection and investigation work of the employer. This included more complex inspections of occupancies with higher-level permits, preparation and maintenance of fire prevention bureau records, plan reviews of new and remodel construction to ensure compliance with fire and safety codes, code enforcement actions, and fire investigations.

4.                  During the entire relevant period: (a) bargaining unit members assigned to engine companies have performed varying numbers of inspections of occupancies with lower-level permits; (b) officers outside the bargaining unit have performed one or two percent of the employer's total inspections, and (c) the non-bargaining unit fire marshall has performed an indeterminate portion of the employer's fire investigations.

5.                  In October 1991, the union and employer negotiated the creation of a bargaining unit position of fire fighter/inspector which succeeded to the duties of the civilian position described above in paragraph 3. This position was available to bargaining unit members only. No job description was negotiated because its duties were so similar to those of a fire fighter. All the employer's fire inspection and investigation work (except that detailed in paragraph 4 above) was performed by the fire fighter/inspector until February 1993.

6.                  The employer's fire inspection duties increased in volume when a portion of its territory incorporated and contracted with the employer to perform complete plan reviews of all new and remodel construction; previously, King County had been primarily responsible for plan reviews. The parties negotiated a new inspector/investigator position to fulfill the increased responsibilities. Only bargaining unit members could apply, and the inspector/investigator was no longer required to dedicate 5 to 10 hours weekly to maintaining fire suppression skills. Bargaining unit inspector/investigators performed all the employer's fire inspection and investigation work (except that detailed in paragraph 4 above) from February 1993 to November 1994.

7.                  September 6, 1994, the employer created a part-time, non-bargaining unit position of fire inspector/investigator without notice to, or negotiations with, the union. This position works 2 5 to 3 0 hours per week performing routine occupancy inspections previously performed by bargaining unit fire fighters, and the more complex occupancy inspections previously performed by the bargaining unit inspector/investigators . The employer refused to bargain with the union about the subject, contending it could act unilaterally because the job description for the non-bargaining unit position described in paragraph 3 above was still in its operations manual.

8.                  The employer created the non-bargaining unit fire inspector/ investigator described in paragraph 7 above in order to save money. The employer's claim that the non-bargaining unit person would be immediately qualified to perform the work is not supported by the record.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.                  The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Chapter 41. 56 RCW.

2.                  KingCountyFireDistrict36hascommittedunfairlabor practices within the meaning of RCW 41. 56. 140(1)and(4)by:

                   (1) transferring bargaining unit work outside the bargaining unit without giving International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2950, notice and an opportunity to bargain, and

                   (2) claiming it can unilaterally determine whether its fire inspection and investigation work will be performed by bargaining unit members or outside the bargaining unit because a job description exists for a non-bargaining unit inspection/ investigation position.

ORDER

KING COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 36, its officers and agents, shall immediately take the following actions to remedy its unfair labor practices:

1. CEASE AND DESIST from:

(a)          Failing to give notice to International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2950, before creating a non-bargaining unit position to perform bargaining unit work;

(b)          Refusing to negotiate in good faith, on request, with International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2950, about transferring bargaining unit work outside the bargaining unit;

(c)        Asserting that the presence or absence of job descriptions in its operations manual limit the rights granted by Chapter 41. 56 RCW to employees represented by International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2950, and

(d)       In any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in their exercise of their collective bargaining rights secured by the laws of the State of Washington.

2 . TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION to effectuate the purposes and policies of Chapter 41. 56 RCW:

(a)                    Restore the status quo ante by returning to the bargaining unit represented by International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2950, all fire inspection and investigation work that was bargaining unit work before creation of the non-bargaining unit fire inspector/investigator position;

(b)                    Make whole any eligible bargaining unit employees by payment to them of the wages and benefits lost as a result of the creation of the non-bargaining unit fire inspector/investigator position, computed according to WAC 391-45-410;

(c)                    Give notice to and negotiate in good faith, on request, with International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2950, before transferring bargaining unit work outside the bargaining unit;

(d)                   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". Such notices shall be duly signed by an authorized representative of the above-named respondent, and shall remain posted for 60 days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the above-named respondent to ensure that such notices are not removed, altered, defaced, or covered by other material;

(e)                    Notify the above-named complainant, in writing, within 20 days following the date of this order, as to what steps have been taken to comply with this order, and at the same time provide the above-named complainant with a signed copy of the notice required by the preceding paragraph, and

(f)                    Notify the Executive Director of the Public Employment Relations Commission, in writing, within 20 days following the date of this order, as to what steps have been taken to comply with this order, and at the same time provide the Executive Director with a signed copy of the notice required by this order.

Dated at Olympia, Washington, on the 13^th day of November, 1995.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

PAMELA G. BRADBURN, Examiner

This order will be the final order of the agency unless appealed by filing a petition for review with the Commission pursuant to WAC 391-45-350.