South Whidbey School District (South Whidbey Education Association), Decision 11250 (EDUC, 2011)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
ERIC HOOD,
Complainant,
vs.
SOUTH WHIDBEY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
ERIC HOOD,
Complainant,
vs.
SOUTH WHIDBEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Respondent.
|
CASE 24323-U-11-6233
DECISION 11250 - EDUC
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
CASE 24324-U-11-6234
DECISION 11251 - EDUC
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
|
On October 11, 2011, Eric Hood (Hood) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming the South Whidbey School District (employer) and South Whidbey Education Association (union) as respondents. The filing was separated into one complaint against the employer−Case 24323-U-11-6233, and one complaint against the union−Case 24324-U-11-6234. The complaints were reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,[1] and a combined deficiency notice issued on November 9, 2011, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that causes of action existed at that time. Hood was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve amended complaints or face dismissal of the cases.
On November 22, 2011, Hood filed amended complaints. The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the amended complaints for failure to state causes of action.
DISCUSSION
The allegations of the complaints concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(a), and union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.59.140(2)(a), by breach of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement in failing to choose an arbitrator from a list supplied by the Commission.
The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaints.
Hood filed these complaints alleging that the employer and union interfered with his collective bargaining rights when they breached their collective bargaining agreement by failing to choose an arbitrator from a list supplied by the Commission. The complaints do not conform to the requirements of WAC 391-45-050(2): Hood provides inapplicable citations to various statutes, but does not give facts indicating how his employee rights were violated; Hood provides the date he learned about the alleged breach, but does not give any other dates.
Further, in a decision issued the same day Hood filed the present complaints, the Commission informed Hood that contract violations are not enforceable through the unfair labor practice process. South Whidbey School District, Decision 11134-A (EDUC, 2011). This order conforms to that ruling. Although Hood alleges interference violations, such claims would be derivative and thus dependent upon a cause of action existing for the breach of contract allegation. Because the breach of contract claim will not be processed, the derivative interference claim is not viable.
Amended Complaints
The amended complaints re-allege breach of contract, consist solely of argument, and do not cure the defects to the complaints.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The amended complaints charging unfair labor practices in Case 24323-U-11-6233 and Case 24324-U-11-6234 are DISMISSED for failures to state causes of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 12th day of December, 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 complaints are assumed to be true and provable. The question at hand is whether, as a matter of law, the complaints state claims for relief available through unfair labor practice proceedings before the Public Employment Relations Commission.