DECISIONS

Edward A. Hemphill, attorney at law, Public School Employees of Washington, appeared on behalf of the union.

Robert D. Schwerdtfeger, labor relations consultant, appeared on behalf of the employer.

Examiner Kenneth J. Latsch issued his findings of fact, conclusions of law and order in the above-entitled matter on October 31, 1986, dismissing unfair labor practice charges filed by Public School Employees of Pasco against the Pasco School District. The union seeks review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the order of dismissal.

The facts and other relevant information concerning this case are set out in detail in the Examiner's decision and need not be repeated here. Rather, we confine ourselves to a brief summary.

This dispute concerns a new position created by the school district in a certain junior high school. The school district called that position "office aide" and fixed the pay at the level of the "aide" classification established in the contract between the union and school district. The essence of the union's concern is that the position is really "clerical" in nature, and should be paid at the higher rate specified in the contract for the "secretarial/clerical" classification.

The Examiner ruled, and the union apparently would agree, that the question of whether or not the position is, in fact, "clerical" or "aide" is one concerning the meaning and application of the contract, and that PERC lacks jurisdiction to remedy a breach of contract in an unfair labor practice proceeding. Contrary to the union's assertion, an arguable breach of collective bargaining agreement does not ordinarily give rise to an unfair labor practice. See, Clallam County. Decision 607-A (PECB, 1979); City of Walla Walla. Decision 104 (PECB, 1976). Purely contractual disputes may be resolved by arbitration, or, if the contract does not contain an arbitration clause (as here) , the courts of this state may be looked to for relief.

The union argues, however, that the creation of, and pay level for, this new position are mandatory subjects of bargaining affecting the bargaining unit it represents. Rejecting that contention, the Examiner wrote:

Complainant has not demonstrated that it was denied any statutory right when the new position came into effect. Respondent met with complainant. While discussions that could be characterized as salary negotiations took place, complainant failed to prove that respondent acted in a different way concerning the office aide position than it had in the past when it dealt with the contractual rights of other newly created aide job descriptions. Taken together, it must be concluded that the matter is a purely contractual dispute, and that the respondent did not commit an unfair labor practice.

We have reviewed the record and we find the Examiner's factual findings to be supported by the evidence.

While an employer has a duty to bargain with the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees concerning the creation of new classifications within the bargaining unit, Goldendale School District. Decision 1634 (PECB, 1983), that duty may be limited or satisfied by the contract between the parties. Thus, an employer and union could anticipate the creation of new classifications, negotiating contract provisions concerning the job content, hours and similar conditions, as well as the impact of the new classification on other bargaining unit employees. Alternatively, as here, the employer may merely add a position to its workforce within the classification and wage structure fixed in the contract. If there is then a dispute as to the application of the contractual pre-agreement such as the applicable classification or wage rate, it is the province of the courts, or if applicable, an arbitrator.

In this case, the union's indicated concern is the wage rate of the new position. The assignment of the new position to an existing contractual wage classification, and hence the rate of pay for the position, was, as stated above, a matter covered by the contract, and any dispute concerning that issue cannot be remedied in an unfair labor practice proceeding.

The findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of dismissal issued by the Examiner are AFFIRMED.

Issued at Olympia, Washington, this 20th day of April, 1987.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

JANE R. WILKINSON, Chairman

[SIGNED]

MARK C. ENDRESEN, Commissioner

[SIGNED]

JOSEPH F. QUINN, Commissioner