Alan E. Provost, president, for the union.

Ronald C. Dickinson, city attorney, for the city.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

On September 25, 1980, the International Association of Firefighters filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission. The union alleges that the City of Mercer Island violated RCW 41.56.140(4) and RCW 41.56.440 by its actions regarding contract negotiations. The union charges that the city did not negotiate in good faith in that it refused to meet at reasonable intervals with the union. A hearing was held on March 2, 1981. At the conclusion of the union's presentation of its case, the city moved for dismissal of the complaint. That motion was granted.

THE FACTS:

In early June, 1980, the union contacted the employer in order to set up an initial bargaining session for the parties 1981 collective bargaining agreement. The city's negotiators met with the union's negotiators on June 25, 1980. At that meeting the union presented to the city its proposals for the new agreement. A second meeting was not held until August 25, 1980. A third meeting was held on October 9, 1980 and at the fourth meeting, which was held a week later, an agreement was reached.

Alan Provost was the chief spokesman for the union side and James Connor was his counterpart for the city. Provost and Connor arranged the times and places for the meetings. Connor testified that he received several phone messages from Provost and that on at least two occasions he returned those calls but found that Provost was not at work. Provost did not testify at the hearing. Curtis D. Johnson, who is secretary-treasurer of the union and a member of its negotiating committee, testified that he was present on several occasions when Provost phoned Connors and it appeared that Connor was not in. No evidence was presented at hearing of any correspondence between the city and the union regarding the scheduling of meetings.

DISCUSSION:

RCW 41.56.140 provides:

It shall be an unfair labor practice for a public employer . . . (4) To refuse to engage in collective bargaining.

RCW 41.56.030 defines collective bargaining as follows:

Collective Bargaining" means the performance of the mutual obligations of the public employer and the exclusive bargaining representative to meet at reasonable times, to confer and negotiate in good faith, and to execute a written agreement with respect to grievance procedures and collective negotiations on personnel matters, including wages, hours and working conditions, which may be peculiar to an appropriate bargaining unit of such public employer, except that by such obligation neither party shall be compelled to agree to a proposal or be required to make a concession unless otherwise provided in this chapter. (Emphasis Supplied).

As the quoted statutory language indicates, a refusal to meet at reasonable times in order to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain. A party which refuses to negotiate at reasonable times cannot evade its responsibilities by placing the blame on the busy schedule of its bargaining agent. Franklin Equipment Co., Inc., 194 NLRB No. 110 (1972).

The union, as the complainant, has the duty to prosecute its own complaint and has the burden of proof. WAC 391-45-270. The evidence which the union brought out at the hearing, appears to indicate that there were an inadequate number of collective bargaining sessions scheduled. Subsequent to the initial meeting, no bargaining session was held for two months and a third meeting was not held for another six weeks. The inadequacy of the schedule of negotiations is emphasized by the nature of the bargaining unit involved. In view of the urgency of effectively settling labor disputes involving uniformed personnel (RCW 41.56.430), the legislature has seen fit to mandate the following schedule for negotiations involving uniformed personnel:

Negotiations between a public employer and the bargaining representative in the unit of uniformed personnel shall be commenced at least five months prior to the submission of the budget to the legislative body of the public employer. If no agreement has been reached sixty days after the commencement of such negotiations then, at any time thereafter, either party may declare that an impasse exists and may submit the dispute to the commission for mediation, with or without the concurrence of the other party...

RCW 41.56.440. A deviation from this timeline could be considered as part of the totality of circumstances in determining whether a refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140 has occurred.

It is impossible to place the blame on either party for the delay in these negotiations. The evidence presented at the hearing proves only that each side placed several calls to the other but each was unsuccessful in reaching the other. The allegation contained in the complaint that the union made numerous attempts to arrange a meeting with the employer, was not supported by the record. Provost, the union president, was the individual who attempted to contact the employer representative to schedule the meetings. For whatever reason, Provost chose not to testify. There was no indication of any correspondence between the parties regarding the scheduling of meetings. The absence of such correspondence has not been explained. The union has failed to meet its burden of proving that the city refused to engage in collective bargaining in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The City of Mercer Island is a public employer within the meaning of RCW 41.56.010 and RCW 41.56.030(1).

2. The International Association of Firefighters is a bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(3).

3. The union is the exclusive bargaining representative of the city's uniformed firefighting personnel.

4. On June 25, 1980, the city and the union commenced negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement to succeed the agreement due to expire on December 31, 1980. A second meeting was held on August 25, 1980. A third meeting was held on October 9, 1980. At the fourth meeting, in mid-October, 1980, an agreement was reached.

5. The reasons for the lengthy intervals between bargaining sessions has not been established.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Chapter 41.56 RCW.

2. By the events described in Findings of Fact 4 and 5, the city did not commit an unfair labor practice violative of RCW 41.56.140(4).

ORDER

The complaint charging unfair labor practices is hereby dismissed.

DATED at Olympia, Washington this 12th day of March, 1981.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

ALAN R. KREBS, Examiner