Island County, Decision 10857 (PECB, 2010)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
island county deputy sheriFf’s guild,
Complainant,
vs.
island county,
Respondent.
|
CASE 23373-U-10-5952
DECISION 10857 - PECB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
|
On July 15, 2010, the Island County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild (union) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming Island County (employer) as respondent. The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,[1] and a deficiency notice issued on July 21, 2010, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time. The union was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case.
The union has not filed any further information. The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
DISCUSSION
The allegations of the complaint concern employer refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) [and if so, derivative “interference” in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)], by its unilateral change in assigning precinct commander work to bargaining unit members, without providing an opportunity for bargaining.
The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaint. One, RCW 41.56.160(1) provides that an unfair labor practice complaint “shall not be processed for any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months before the filing of the complaint with the commission.” The union filed the present complaint on July 15, 2010. The complaint states that the employer “recently” began assigning precinct commander work to bargaining unit members. The term “recently” does not indicate whether the alleged unilateral change occurred on or after January 15, 2010.
Two, the complaint indicates that non-bargaining unit members previously assigned as precinct commanders “received the full wage rate associated with that position.” The purpose of that statement is unclear, since the complaint does not specifically allege that payment of the precinct commander wage rate is at issue in this case.
Three, WAC 391-45-050(2) requires statements of fact to include specific times, dates, places and participants in occurrences. The complaint does not identify the bargaining unit members who were allegedly assigned the precinct commander work, and does not provide specific dates for the occurrences.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The complaint charging unfair labor practices in Case 23373-U-10-5952 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 13th day of September, 2010.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
DAVID I. GEDROSE, Unfair Labor Practice Manager
This order will be the final order of the
agency 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.