University of Washington (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 11086 (PSRA, 2011)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON,
Employer.
SUSAN HEBEL,
Complainant,
vs.
WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF STATE EMPLOYEES,
Respondent.
|
CASE 23969-U-11-6128
DECISION 11086 - PSRA
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
|
On May 11, 2011, Susan Hebel (Hebel) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming the Washington State Federation of State Employees (union) as respondent. The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,[1] and a deficiency notice issued on May 13, 2011, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time. Hebel was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case.
Hebel 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 complaints concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a), discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(c) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a)]; and union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(2)(a), by employer and union actions toward Hebel.
The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaint.
One, Hebel filed the complaints against the employer and union on one complaint form, with one statement of facts. The complaints were docketed as Case 23968-U-11-6127 (employer) and Case 23969-U-11-6128 (union). Amended complaints should be filed separately, with separate statements of facts.
Two, the complaints appear to be untimely under RCW 41.80.120(1), which states:
Unfair labor practice procedures − Powers and duties of commission.
(1) The commission is empowered and directed to prevent any unfair labor practice and to issue appropriate remedial orders: PROVIDED, That a complaint shall not be processed for any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months before the filing of the complaint with the commission. This power shall not be affected or impaired by any means of adjustment, mediation, or conciliation in labor disputes that have been or may hereafter be established by law.
It is an unfair labor practice in violation of Chapter 41.80 RCW for an employer or union to interfere with an employee’s collective bargaining rights by improperly excluding the employee from a bargaining unit. Hebel alleges that the employer and union unlawfully entered into an agreement to exclude Hebel from a bargaining unit represented by the Washington Federation of State Employees (union). Apparently, this occurred sometime in 2001. Information supplied with the statement of facts indicates that the union’s most recent communication with Hebel was on August 4, 2007. Based upon these facts, the Commission does not have jurisdiction either in Case 23968-U-11-6127 or Case 23969-U-11-6128. No causes of action exist for the allegations of employer interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a), or union interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(2)(a).
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The complaint charging unfair labor practices in Case 23969-U-11-6128 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 7th day of June, 2011.
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.