DECISIONS

Decision Information

Decision Content

Skamania County (OPEIU, Local 11), Decision 11865 (PECB, 2013)

 

STATE OF WASHINGTON

 

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

 

TIMOTHY W. O’MAHONEY,

 

                                                Complainant,             

 

                        vs.                                       

 

SKAMANIA COUNTY,

 

                                                Respondent. 



skamania county,

                            
Employer.

timothy w. o’mahoney
,

 

Complainant,

 

vs.

 

office and professional employees international union, local 11,

 

Respondent. 

 

 

CASE 25874-U-13-6630 

 

DECISION 11865 - PECB

 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE 25875-U-13-6631

 

DECISION 11866 - PECB 

 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 

 

 

 

 

On August 5, 2013, Timothy W. O’Mahoney (O’Mahoney) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming Skamania County (employer) as respondent.  The complaint was docketed as Case 25874-U-13-6630.  On the same day O’Mahoney filed an unfair labor practices complaint naming Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 11 (union) as respondent.  The complaint was docketed as Case 25875-U-13-6631.  The complaints were consolidated under WAC 10-08-085, reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,[1] and a combined deficiency notice issued on August 12, 2013, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that causes of action existed at that time.  O’ Mahoney was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve amended complaints or face dismissal of the cases. 

 

O’Mahoney has not filed any further information.  The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the complaints for failures to state causes of action.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The allegations of the complaints concern employer discrimination (and derivative interference)  in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), by laying off O’Mahoney in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW; and union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1), by breach of its duty of fair representation regarding O’Mahoney’s lay off.  The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaints. 

 

One, the statement of facts alleges that both the employer and union breached the terms of their collective bargaining agreement in laying O’Mahoney off.  O’Mahoney states that he filed these complaints as grievances.  The Public Employment Relations Commission does not process grievances under collective bargaining agreements and does not have jurisdiction to resolve contract disputes involving grievances. 

 

Two, RCW 41.56.160(1) provides that complaints must be filed within six months of the alleged unfair labor practice violations.  O’Mahoney states that he was laid off on December 31, 2011.  O’Mahoney should have filed the complaints no later than June 30, 2012.  The complaints are untimely.  O’Mahoney states that on July 25, 2013, he learned that two other employees had filed grievances, but that is not a date relevant to the statute of limitations governing these complaints.  O’Mahoney knew of his lay off on December 31, 2011; that he learned of others filing claims in July 2013 does not create a new violation date.

 

Three, regarding employers, the Commission has jurisdiction for unlawful termination only if the facts of a complaint indicate that the termination was in reprisal for union activities.  O’Mahoney does not allege that his lay off was for union activities, and does not identify any union activities unrelated to this complaint.  Rather, as noted above, O’Mahoney’s claim is that the employer did not follow the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.    

 

Four, regarding unions, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over a union refusing or failing to file a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement.  The Commission has jurisdiction over complaints involving the breach of the duty of fair representation only if facts show that a union’s actions were arbitrary, discriminatory, or done in bad faith.  The statement of facts provides only a brief statement regarding the union’s actions and does not indicate that the union’s actions were unlawful. 

 

Even if the complaints against the employer and union were timely, the Commission would not have jurisdiction.  O’Mahoney must seek relief through internal employer or union procedures or the Courts.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

 

                                                                    ORDERED

 

The complaints charging unfair labor practices in Cases 25874-U-13-6630 and 25875-U-13-6631 are DISMISSED for failures to state causes of action.

 

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  5th  day of September, 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.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.