City of Seattle (Professional and Technical Employees, Local 17), Decision 11723 (PECB, 2013)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
Employer.
ANTHONY BARRERA, ANGEL CAINGLET, DANKIA CRAWFORD, MARK DAVIS, CARMELIA DAVIS-RAINES, JUDITH DORSEY, TERESA FLORES, JUNE HAYTHORNE, AUDREY HOFFMAN, SONYA HOWARD, LYNDA JONES, STACY KINERK, MARK LEA, TERRANCE MACK, CHERYL PARKER MUSKELLY, KIMBERLY MONROE, BETTY NTHULI, PAULINE ROBINSON, PAUL EDWARD RYAN, FILIPINAS ULEP, TANISHA WAGNER, TONI WILLIAMSON,
Complainants,
vs.
professional and technical employees, local 17,
Respondent.
|
CASES 25569-U-13-6541, 25570-U-13-6542, 25571-U-13-6543, 25572-U-13-6544, 25573-U-13-6545, 25574-U-13-6546, 25575-U-13-6547, 25576-U-13-6548, 25577-U-13-6549, 25578-U-13-6550, 25579-U-13-6551, 25580-U-13-6552, 25581-U-13-6553, 25582-U-13-6554, 25583-U-13-6555, 25584-U-13-6556, 25585-U-13-6557, 25586-U-13-6558, 25587-U-13-6559, 25588-U-13-6560, 25589-U-13-6561, 25590-U-13-6562
DECISIONS 11723 – PECB, 11724 - PECB 11725 – PECB, 11726 – PECB 11727 – PECB, 11728 – PECB 11729 – PECB, 11730 – PECB 11731 – PECB, 11732 – PECB 11733 – PECB, 11734 – PECB 11735 – PECB, 11736 – PECB 11737 – PECB, 11738 – PECB 11739 – PECB, 11740 – PECB 11741 – PECB, 11742 – PECB 11743 – PECB, 11744 - PECB
ORDERS OF DISMISSAL |
On March 25, 2013, the above-named named complainants filed complaints charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming the Professional and Technical Employees, Local 17 (union) as respondent. The complaints were consolidated for further unfair labor practice proceedings under WAC 10-08-085 and reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,[1] and a consolidated deficiency notice issued on April 2, 2013, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time. The complainants were given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve amended complaints or face dismissal of the cases.
The complainants have not filed any further information. The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the complaints for failures to state causes of action.
DISCUSSION
The complaints were docketed as separate cases:
Case Number 25569-U-13-6541 – Anthony Barrera
25570-U-13-6542 – Angel Cainglet
25571-U-13-6543 – Danika Crawford
25572-U-13-6544 – Mark Davis
25573-U-13-6545 – Carmelia Davis-Raines
25574-U-13-6546 – Judith Dorsey
25575-U-13-6547 – Teresa Flores
25576-U-13-6548 – June Haythorne
25577-U-13-6549 – Audrey Hoffman
25578-U-13-6550 – Sonya Howard
25579-U-13-6551 – Lynda Jones
25580-U-13-6552 – Stacy Kinerk
25581-U-13-6553 – Mark Lea
25582-U-13-6554 – Terrance Mack
25583-U-13-6555 – Cheryl Parker Muskelly
25584-U-13-6556 – Kimberly Monroe
25585-U-13-6557 – Betty Nthuli
25586-U-13-6558 – Pauline Robinson
25587-U-13-6559 – Paul Edward Ryan
25588-U-13-6560 – Filipinas Ulep
25589-U-13-6561 – Tanisha Wagner
25590-U-13-6562 – Toni Williamson
A common statement of facts and remedy request was submitted with each complaint. The allegations of the complaints concern union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1), by breach of its duty of fair representation.
A deficiency notice applicable to all complaints pointed out the defects to the complaints.
The complaints allege, in pertinent part, that the employer is investigating bargaining unit members concerning call center representatives who “have either performed adjustments on their own accounts or performed adjustments on co-worker accounts or family members and other tasks that the call center performs.” The complaints allege that “the union has failed to protect members from violations of our CBA,” and has “provided incorrect information about past cases and has breached its duty of fair representation to members.”
Unions have a duty of fair representation to their members; however, the Commission declines to assert jurisdiction on breach of the duty of fair representation allegations arising exclusively from the processing of claims arising under an existing collective bargaining agreement. The complaints allege that the union has breached its duty of fair representation concerning alleged violations of the collective bargaining agreement. The Commission does not have jurisdiction in these cases, and the complainants must seek relief through internal union procedures or the courts.
In addition, the complaints do not provide sufficient information under WAC 391-45-050(2) concerning times, dates, places, and participants in occurrences. Paragraph 4 of the statement of facts is apparently the basis of the complaints, with preceding paragraphs serving as background, but Paragraph 4 is a legal conclusion, not a factual statement containing sufficient information to state a cause of action. The complaints also do not make clear how the union has allegedly breached its duty of fair representation. However, curing those defects would not address the underlying defect of the complaints: The lack of Commission jurisdiction. The complaints do not and cannot legally state a cause of action.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The complaints charging unfair labor practices in the cases identified in this Order are DISMISSED for failures to state causes of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 7th day of May, 2013.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
DAVID I. GEDROSE, Unfair Labor Practice Manager
This 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.