Spokane County, Decision 6073 (PECB. 1997)

The complainant in this case was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission on August 21, 1997. It alleged a refusal to bargain by the employer, predicated upon a unilateral implementation of employee performance evaluations and refusal to bargain the impacts of such procedure, which are alleged to have occurred in March of 1997. The Executive Director issued a preliminary ruling under WAC 391-45-110 on September 8, 1997, finding a cause of action to exist and directing the employer to answer.

The employer filed its answer on October 2, 1997. A motion for summary judgment filed on the same date was predicated upon affidavits and exhibits submitted which purport to show that the actions complained of in this case occurred in March of 1996. The employer thus urges that the complaint in this matter is untimely under RCW 41.56.160.

RCW 41.56.160 does, indeed, impose a six-month statute of limitations on the filing of unfair labor practice charges. The complaint filed in this matter on August 21, 1997 is timely, on its face, only as to conduct occurring on or after February 21, 1997. A “knew or reasonably should have known” test is applied in the administration of this limitation, so the union would have the burden to prove that any earlier violation of the statute for which it seeks a remedy was concealed from it.

Evident defects under the “statute of limitations” are dealt with at the preliminary rulings stage of unfair labor practice proceedings under Chapter 391-45 WAC, and complaints which are defective on their face are questioned and/or dismissed under WAC 391-45-110 and RCW 34.05.416, prior to the initiation of adjudicative proceedings. As noted in the preliminary ruling letter, however, the Executive Director evaluates complaints on the (rebuttable) presumption that all of the facts alleged in a complaint are true and provable. In this case, the union's complaint expressly states that the disputed evaluation procedure was presented to the union as “a draft” on March 1, 1997, and that it was discussed on March 7, 1997.

A complainant is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing on allegations which state a cause of action, prior to the disposition of its claims. See, RCW 34.05.419. The Commission staff does not “investigate” unfair labor practice charges in a manner familiar to those who practice before the National Labor Relations Board, and does not make ex parte judgments on the quality or weight of the evidence available to support a party's allegations. If the employer has a “statute of limitations” defense available to it in this case, it will need to present that evidence at the hearing. The employer's motion and supporting affidavits and exhibits merely raise questions of contested fact. They do not establish that there are no genuine issues upon material fact, or that the employer is entitled to a judgement in its favor as to matter of law.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

The motion for summary judgement filed by Spokane County in the above-captioned matter is DENIED.

Issued at Olympia, Washington, this 21st day of October, 1997.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

VINCENT M. HELM, Examiner