Prosser School District, Decision 10572 (PECB, 2009)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES OF WASHINGTON,
Complainant,
vs.
PROSSER SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
|
CASE 22713-U-09-5805
DECISION 10572 - PECB
PRELIMINARY RULING AND PARTIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
|
On September 15, 2009, the Public School Employees of Washington (union) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming the Prosser School District (employer) as respondent. The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,[1] and a deficiency notice issued on September 22, 2009, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time for some of the allegations of the complaint. The union was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the defective allegations. The union has not filed an amended complaint.
The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the interference and unilateral change allegations of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and finds a cause of action for the interference and circumvention allegations of the complaint. The employer must file and serve its answer within 21 days following the date of this Decision.
DISCUSSION
The allegations concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4), by (a) its unilateral change to the hours of work of certain bargaining unit members, without providing an opportunity for bargaining, and (b) by employer officials circumventing the union through direct dealing with library assistants represented by the union, without notification of or participation by the union.
The allegations of the complaint concerning interference and circumvention of the union state a cause of action under WAC 391-45-110(2) for further unfair labor practice proceedings before the Commission.
The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the interference and unilateral change allegations of the complaint. WAC 391-45-050(2) requires complaints to set forth “clear and concise statements of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practices, including times, dates, places and participants in occurrences.” The statement of facts alleges that the employer unilaterally reduced the hours of work of “certain bargaining unit members.” The context of the statement of facts does not appear to limit this claim to the library assistants. The statement of facts must identify the employees or positions whose hours were allegedly reduced.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
1. Assuming all of the facts alleged to be true and provable, the following allegations of the complaint state a cause of action, summarized as follows:
Employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4), by employer officials circumventing the union through direct dealing with library assistants represented by the union, without notification of or participation by the union.
Those allegations of the complaint will be the subject of further proceedings under Chapter 391-45 WAC.
The Prosser School District shall:
File and serve its answer to the allegations listed in paragraph 1 of this Order, within 21 days following the date of this Order.
An answer shall:
a. Specifically admit, deny or explain each fact alleged in the complaint, except if a respondent states it is without knowledge of the fact, that statement will operate as a denial; and
b. Assert any affirmative defenses that are claimed to exist in the matter.
The answer shall be filed with the Commission at its Olympia office. A copy of the answer shall be served on the attorney or principal representative of the person or organization that filed the complaint. Service shall be completed no later than the day of filing. Except for good cause shown, a failure to file an answer within the time specified, or the failure to file an answer to specifically deny or explain a fact alleged in the complaint, will be deemed to be an admission that the fact is true as alleged in the complaint, and as a waiver of a hearing as to the facts so admitted. WAC 391‑45‑210.
2. The allegations of the complaint concerning employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4), by its unilateral change to the hours of work of certain bargaining unit members, without providing an opportunity for bargaining, are DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 16th day of October, 2009.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
DAVID I. GEDROSE, Unfair Labor Practice Manager
Paragraph 3 of this order will be the final order of the agency on
any defective allegations, unless a notice of appeal is filed with
the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.
[1] At this stage of the proceedings, all of the facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true and provable. The question at hand is whether, as a matter of law, the complaint states a claim for relief available through unfair labor practice proceedings before the Public Employment Relations Commission.