Washington State Ferries, Decision 12094 (MRNE, 2014)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
GEORGE PFINGST,
Complainant,
vs.
WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES,
Respondent.
|
CASE 26487-U-14-6761
DECISION 12094 - MRNE
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
|
On May 15, 2014, George Pfingst (Pfingst) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming Washington State Ferries as respondent. The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,[1] and a deficiency notice issued on May 21, 2014, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time. Pfingst was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case.
Pfingst did not file an amended complaint. On May 28, 2014, Pfingst sent an e-mail to the employer and the Commission stating that he was not going to pursue his grievance. The Commission does not have information concerning a grievance filed by Pfingst. The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the unfair labor practice complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
DISCUSSION
The allegations of the complaint concern employer violations of Chapter 47.64 RCW, by actions toward George Pfingst (Pfingst). The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaint.
Other than giving the name and address of the complainant, the complaint does not comply with the remaining requirements of WAC 391-45-050. The complaint does not give contact information for the employer/respondent. There is no clear and concise statement of facts (in numbered paragraphs), no remedy request, no signature, no attached collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and no identification of the statutes allegedly violated. (The CBA refers to the CBA between the employer and the union representing employees in Pfingst’s classification.)
The brief statement provided by Pfingst does not indicate that the employer committed an unfair labor practice by terminating his employment in retaliation for union activities. Even if Pfingst cured the defects to the complaint, the Commission would not have jurisdiction in this matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The complaint charging unfair labor practices in Case 26487-U-14-6761 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 20th day of June, 2014.
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.