Chancey C. Crowell, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the employer.

Faith Hanna, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the union.

Wilbur School District No. 200 filed a petition with the Public Employment Relations Commission on May 13, 1980, seeking removal of the positions of maintenance/custodial supervisor and transportation supervisor from the classified bargaining unit on the basis that the employees holding the two positions are confidential employees and supervisory employees. A formal hearing was held on February 10, 1981 before George G. Miller, Hearing Officer. The parties filed post-hearing briefs on May 18, 1981.

BACKGROUND:

The Wilbur Classified Employees, CPEA/WEA, is the exclusive bargaining representative for:

"All full and regular part-time employees of the Wilbur School District No. 200 performing duties as bus drivers, bus supervisor, cook, assistant cook, custodian, dishwasher, maintenance man, maintenance supervisor or mechanic."

The organization gained bargaining rights as the result of a certification issued by the Public Employment Relations Commission on November 15, 1979. Wilbur School District, Decision 765 (PECB, 1979). The bargaining unit description was agreed to by the parties in an election agreement filed in that case. Both of the disputed individuals were stipulated by the parties to be eligible voters in the representation election. Shortly thereafter, the employer sought exclusion of the disputed positions from the bargaining unit, claiming a change of circumstances.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:

The petitioner contends that the maintenance/custodial supervisor and the transportation supervisor are confidential employees and supervisory employees who should not be included in the classified employee bargaining unit.

The respondent holds that the two positions in question are in the bargaining unit by mutual agreement, that they share a community of interest with other jobs in the unit and do not meet the criteria for exclusion as either confidential or supervisory employees.

DISCUSSION:

The disputed positions were included in the bargaining unit by agreement of the parties. Both employees testified conclusively at the hearing that there had been no change in their duties since the November 7, 1979 representation election. Under current case law in Washington, these two premises, well established in the testimony and uncontroverted, dictate a conclusion that the District may not now exclude the positions from the bargaining unit. Toppenish School District, Decision 1143-A (PECB, 1981). This policy dates back to Camas School District No. 117, Decision 790 (PECB, 1979), where it was noted:

"…The employer's change of heart about a voluntary recognition is clearly not a sufficient basis for disturbing the established bargaining unit.",

and to City of Buckley, Decision 287-A (PECB, 1977), where supervisors voluntarily included in a rank and file unit were left in that unit absent a change of circumstance.

The employer mainly relies upon an argument that the positions call for duties indigenous to a supervisory position, and therefore the employees should be excluded from the unit as supervisors. The employer fails to cite any statutory provisions dictating the exclusions except the National Labor Relations Act, section 2(11). The substantial differences in the treatment of supervisors between the NLRA and RCW 41.56 have long been established. City of Tacoma, Decision 95-A (PECB, 1977). The employer's reliance upon City of Richland, Decision 279-A (PECB, 1978), is relevant; however, the determination must derive from analysis of all of the evidence presented.

The maintenance/custodial supervisor spends two to three hours per day on cleaning work. The rest of his eight-hour day is occupied with maintenance and repair work. While he does assign certain work to other maintenance and custodial personnel, this duty is no more than the task of a lead person or working foreman. He may discuss with the employees certain work that has not been done, but refers all but small problems with employees to the superintendent.

The transportation supervisor spends most of his day fulfilling his duties as the District's only bus mechanic. He makes sure that the buses have oil and gas and are in working order. He also drives a bus route for two and one-half to three hours per day. On an average day, he works less than an hour on routine paperwork, such as keeping track of the mileage of the buses. Occasionally, he is called upon for more complicated paperwork such as drawing up bus routes or bus specifications. He has not become involved in discipline or discharge of other bus drivers. The hiring of bus drivers is accomplished by the superintendent and the school board. The transportation supervisor interviews and checks the driving of bus driver applicants, but the bus driver work force is so small and stablethat he has made only one recommendation on hiring in the last two years.

The collective bargaining agreement controls the wages and benefits of all bus drivers, custodians, mechanics, and maintenance personnel. The two supervisors share exactly the same fringe benefits given to other classified employees by the contract.

The evidence in this case indicates that the maintenance/custodial supervisor and the transportation supervisor share a substantial community of interest with the other classified personnel. The work they do in assigning or directing work of other employees does not give them more supervisory authority than the maintenance lead persons which the Commission included in a rank and file bargaining unit in Bethel School District No. 403, Decision 882 (PECB, 1980); Lacey Employees Guild, Decision 396 (PECB, 1978); or City of Hoquiam, Decision 880 (PECB, 1980).

The petitioner presented no evidence to show that the maintenance/custodial supervisor or the transportation supervisor are confidential employees having involvement in formulation of district labor relations policy.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  Wilbur School District No. 200, is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer within the meaning of RCW 41.56.

2.                  Wilbur Classified Employees, CPEA/WEA is, and has been at all times material herein, the exclusive bargaining representative for a bargaining unit consisting of all full and regular part-time employees of the Wilbur School District No. 200 performing duties as bus drivers, bus supervisor, cook, assistant cook, custodian, dishwasher, maintenance man, maintenance supervisor or mechanic.

3.                  The petitioner and the respondent executed an election agreement on October 30, 1979. A representation election was held on November 7, 1979, resulting in the certification of Wilbur Classified Employees CPEA/WEA as exclusive bargaining representative of the unit described in paragraph 2 of these Findings of Fact. The maintenance/custodial supervisor and the transportation supervisor were included in the unit by agreement of the parties.

4.                  Both the maintenance/custodial supervisor and the transportation supervisor spend a substantial amount of their daily work hours performing work similar to that performed by their fellow employees. They have limited authority to recommend personnel action and all such recommendations are subject to independent review and rejection by their supervisors. Their duties and authority have not been changed substantially since their inclusion in the bargaining unit.

5.                  Neither the maintenance/custodial supervisor nor the transportation supervisor is a deputy or administrative assistant to the Superintendent of Schools whose duties actually or necessarily involve an intimate fiduciary relationship on matters of confidential labor relations policy of the employer.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.                  The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to RCW 41.56 and no question of representation presently exists.

2.                  The maintenance/custodial supervisor and the transportation supervisor are public employees within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(2) who are properly included in the bargaining unit within the meaning of RCW 41.56.060.

ORDER

The positions of maintenance/custodial supervisor and transportation supervisor shall continue to be included in the bargaining unit described in paragraph 2 of the foregoing Findings of Fact.

DATED at Olympia, Washington this 22nd day of February, 1982.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARVIN L. SCHURKE, Executive Director