DECISIONS

City of Seattle (Washington State Council of County and City Employees, Council 2, Local 21), Decision 11466 (PECB, 2012)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

On August 7, 2012, Darrell Merkel (Merkel) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming the Washington State Council of County and City Employees, Council 2, Local 21 (union) as respondent.  The employer is not a party to this case.  The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,^[1] and a deficiency notice issued on August 15, 2012, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time.  Merkel was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case. 

Merkel 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 union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1), inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice in violation of RCW 41.56.150(2) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1)], and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.150(4) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1)], by its actions toward Darrell Merkel (Merkel). 

The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaint. 

First, WAC 391-45-050(2) (rule) requires complaints to contain 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 does not fully conform to the rule, since it relies substantially on exhibits.  References to exhibits do not provide sufficient information under the rule.

Second, RCW 41.56.160(1) provides for a six month statute of limitations for unfair labor practice complaints.  The complaint was filed on August 7, 2012; thus, occurrences subject to remedy by the Commission must have taken place on or after February 7, 2012.  Many of the allegations involve claims from 2011, and many of the claims within the relevant time period give dates referencing letters, but no dates on the underlying occurrences.  The complaint appears to be untimely.

Third, the Public Employment Relations Commission does not assert jurisdiction to remedy contract disputes, including disputes arising out of grievances, and does not have jurisdiction over internal union disputes between union members and the union. 

Finally, individual employees do not have standing to file refusal to bargain claims—only employers or unions may process such claims. 

Individual employees have standing to file claims for interference and union inducement, but the complaint contains only allegations of breaches of the collective bargaining agreement, allegations of the union’s failures in representation, including grievance representation, and allegations of impropriety in internal union matters.  None of those claims state a cause of action.  Even if the statement of facts conformed to the rule and was revised to include only timely allegations, the Commission would not have jurisdiction and could not process Merkel’s complaint.  Merkel must seek remedies through internal union procedures or the courts.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

                                                                    ORDERED

The complaint charging unfair labor practices in Case 25039-U-12-6403 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  17th  day of September, 2012.

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.