DECISIONS

Kitsap County, Decision 11800 (PECB, 2013)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

This case concerns the Road/Er&R Funds bargaining unit (“Council”).  On May 30, 2013, Teamsters Local 589 (union) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming Kitsap County (employer) as respondent.  The complaint was reviewed und­er WAC 391-45-110,^[1] and a deficiency notice issued on June 5, 2013, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time.  The union was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the complaint. 

The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses defective allegations of the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and finds causes of action as set forth in the preliminary ruling below.  The employer must file and serve its answer to the amended complaint within 21 days following the date of this Decision.

DISCUSSION

The allegations of the complaint concern employer refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) [and derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)], by breach of its good faith bargaining obligations in negotiating collective bargaining agreements.  The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaint.

WAC 391-45-050 requires complaints to contain clear and concise statements of facts, set forth in numbered paragraphs, indicating the alleged unfair labor practices, including times, dates, places, and participants in occurrences.  The complaint does not contain a statements of facts.  The union provides charts that apparently refer to bargaining sessions, but that information is insufficient for the purposes of Chapter 41.56 RCW and Chapter 391-45 WAC.

                                                             Amended Complaint

The amended complaint contains a statement of facts stating a cause of action for employer refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) [and derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)], by breach of its good faith bargaining obligations in negotiations over economic proposals for a collective bargaining agreement.

The amended complaint also alleges refusal to bargain and derivative interference by the employer’s refusal to provide relevant information regarding economic proposals on August 22, 2012, and April 23, 2013.  In addition, the amended complaint alleges employer refusal to bargain and derivative interference by its unilateral changes to the joint labor-management medical benefits committee (MBC), without providing an opportunity for bargaining. 

Unfair labor practice complaints must be filed within six months of the alleged occurrence.  RCW 41.56.160(1).  The complaint was filed on May 30, 2013.  Any allegations of violations occurring prior to November 30, 2012, are untimely and must be dismissed.  The allegation concerning a request for information on August 22, 2012, is untimely and will be dismissed. 

The allegations concerning the MBC are also untimely and will be dismissed.  The statement of facts alleges, in summary (Paragraphs 12-15), that prior to October 2012 the MBC met quarterly, on average.  In October 2012, the employer announced changes to medical benefits, and the union demanded bargaining over the changes be brought to the MBC “at that time”; however, “since that time” the employer has refused to attend an MBC meeting, unilaterally changed the quarterly meeting practice, and eliminated the MBC.  The test for timeliness is when the union knew or should have known of the alleged violations.  City of Bremerton, Decision 7739-A (PECB, 2003).  The statement of facts indicates that the union knew of the employer’s alleged actions regarding the MBC in October 2012, and does not claim that the union only became aware of the employer’s alleged actions on or about some specific date after November 30, 2012.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

                                                                    ORDERED

1.                  Assuming all of the facts alleged to be true and provable, the following allegations of the amended complaint state causes of action for:

Road/Er&R Funds bargaining unit

Employer refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) [and derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)], by (a) breach of its good faith bargaining obligations in negotiations over economic proposals for a collective bargaining agreement, and (b) its refusal to provide relevant information requested by the union on April 23, 2013, regarding the economic proposals.

Those allegations of the amended complaint will be the subject of further proceedings under Chapter 391-45 WAC.

Kitsap County shall:

File and serve its answer to the allegations listed in Paragraph 1 this Order within 21 days following the date of this Order.

An answer shall:

a.         Specifically admit, deny or explain each fact alleged in the amended complaint, as set forth in Paragraph 1 of this Order, except if a respondent states it is without knowledge of the fact, that statement will operate as a denial; and

b.         Assert any affirmative defenses that are claimed to exist in the matter.

The answer shall be filed with the Commission at its Olympia office.  A copy of the answer shall be served on the attorney or principal representative of the person or organization that filed the amended complaint.  Service shall be completed no later than the day of filing.  Except for good cause shown, a failure to file an answer within the time specified, or the failure to file an answer to specifically deny or explain a fact alleged in the amended complaint, will be deemed to be an admission that the fact is true as alleged in the amended complaint, and as a waiver of a hearing as to the facts so admitted.  WAC 391‑45‑210.

2.                  The allegations of the amended complaint concerning employer refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) [and derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.140], by (a) its refusal to provide relevant information requested by the union on August 22, 2012, regarding economic proposals, and (b) its unilateral changes to the joint labor-management medical benefits committee (MBC), without providing an opportunity for bargaining, are DISMISSED for failure to state causes of action.

Case Consolidation

Under WAC 10-08-085, Case 25729-U-13-6588 (Road/Er&R Funds bargaining unit), Case 25730-U-13-6589 (Public Works/Utilities bargaining unit), and Case 25737-U-13-6591 (Parks and Recreation bargaining unit) are consolidated for further unfair labor practice proceedings.

Designation of bargaining unit

The amended complaint form identifies the bargaining unit as “Teamsters 589.”  The relevant collective bargaining agreement is the “Council” agreement encompassing bargaining units represented by three additional labor organizations.  There is no indication that Teamsters Local 589 has filed this amended complaint on behalf of those other bargaining units.  The statement of facts incorrectly identifies the bargaining unit as the Public Works/Utilities bargaining unit at issue in Case 25730-U-13-6589.  For clarity, the union should correct this error (see Appendix B of the “Council” agreement). 

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  28^th  day of June, 2013.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

DAVID I. GEDROSE, Unfair Labor Practice Manager

Paragraph 2 will be the final order of the agency on

any defective allegations, unless a notice of appeal is

filed with the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.