Washington State Ferries, Decision 11220 (MRNE, 2011)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
emelita reyes moniz,
Complainant,
vs.
washington state ferries,
Respondent.
|
CASE 24245-U-11-6212
DECISION 11220 - MRNE
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
|
On September 14, 2011, Emelita Reyes Moniz (Moniz) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming Washington State Ferries (employer) as the respondent. The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,[1] and a deficiency notice issued on September 22, 2011, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time. Moniz was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case.
Moniz requested and was granted a ten day extension to file an answer; Moniz filed an amended complaint on October 24, 2011. The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
DISCUSSION
The allegations of the complaint concern employer discrimination in violation of RCW 47.64.130(1)(c) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 47.64.130(1)(a)], by actions concerning Moniz.
The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaint.
WAC 391-45-050 governs the filing of unfair labor practice complaints. Each complaint must contain, in separate numbered paragraphs, “Clear and concise statements of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practices, including times, dates, places and participants in occurrences.” WAC 391-45-050(2). The complaint must contain a statement of the remedy sought by the complainant. WAC 391-45-050(3). Chapter 47.64 RCW does not presently include a limitations of action provision, but the Marine Employees Commission (MEC) limited the time for filing complaints to one hundred eighty calendar days (180) from the alleged violation, under WAC 316-45-020. In 2ESSB 5742, the Legislature directed a six month statute of limitations, effective July 1, 2013. In the interim, unfair labor practice complaints filed under Chapter 47.64 RCW will be evaluated for timeliness under the 180 day limit historically used by the MEC.
The complaint does not conform to either WAC 391-45-050(2) or WAC 391-45-050(3). The complaint was filed on September 14, 2011. It is not clear when the events occurred, although emails attached to complaint give dates in June 2010, well outside the 180 day limit. The materials submitted by Moniz do not constitute an unfair labor practice complaint under Chapter 391-45 WAC and do not state a cause of action.
Amended Complaint
The amended statement of facts does not contain numbered paragraphs and does not include a remedy request. However, those omissions alone do not render the amended complaint defective. The amended complaint is untimely, and the Commission lacks jurisdiction.
The amended complaint gives March 18, 2010, as the most recent date concerning Moniz’ claims. Even if the amended complaint stated a cause of action, it would be untimely. Moniz filed the complaint on September 14, 2011, but the complaint should have been filed no later than September 14, 2010.
In any case, the amended complaint does not state a cause of action for allegations within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction over discrimination claims against employers only when those charges are directly related to union activities. The amended complaint explicitly identifies the allegations as concerning discrimination due to age, gender, and race. The Commission has no jurisdiction over those claims, and Moniz must seek relief through human rights agencies and/or the courts.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The amended complaint charging unfair labor practices in Case 24245-U-11-6212 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 4th day of November, 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.