DECISIONS

Decision Information

Decision Content

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITY OF RICHLAND,

 

Complainant,

CASE 6289-U-86-1214

vs.

DECISION 2448-D - PECB

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1052,

 

 

ORDER CLOSING CASE

Respondent.

 

This case originated with a complaint filed by the employer, alleging that the union was committing an unfair labor practice by pursuing and seeking interest arbitration on a "minimum manning" proposal. Previous decisions were rendered in this case by the Examiner[1], and by the Commission[2]. Most recently, the matter was remanded to the Examiner by the Commission in City of Richland, Decision 2448-C (PECB, 1990), pursuant to a decision by the Supreme Court of Washington in International Association of Fire Fighters v. PERC, 113 Wn.2d 197 (1989).[3]

On August 7, 1990, counsel for the union requested that the hearing be re-opened, in order to augment the record. The employer was asked for comment on that motion.

By a letter dated August 15, 1990, the employer informed the examiner, in writing, that it regarded the issue raised in this case to be moot, and that it wished to withdraw the complaint. The employer asserted that the disputed proposal had not been pursued by the union in subsequent negotiations between the parties, and that the parties had settled subsequent collective bargaining agreements since the controversy began. The union concurred in the employer’s request.

The Examiner having considered the matter and being satisfied that the withdrawal should be accepted and the matter closed;

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

That the complainant's request to withdraw the complaint filed in the above entitled matter is accepted and the matter is closed.

DATED at Olympia, Washington, this 5th day of September, 1990.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

WILLIAM A. LANG, Examiner



[1]          City of Richland, Decision 2448-A (PECB, 1987).

[2]          City of Richland, Decision 2448-B (PECB, 1987).

[3]          In its decision, the Court viewed the Commission as holding that equipment staffing is a nonmandatory subject of bargaining. Believing that the Commission had made its finding without review of the facts presented to the Examiner, and without application of a case-by-case approach, the Court remanded the scope of bargaining issue to the Commission. In doing so, the Court voiced the opinion that it seemed appropriate for the Examiner to first address the issue on remand, since he had not done so in his initial decision.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.