Clark County, Decision 11886 (PECB, 2013)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
In the matter of the joint petition of:
CLARK COUNTY
and
PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 17
For clarification of an existing bargaining unit.
|
CASE 25425-C-13-1535
DECISION 11886 - PECB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
|
Roberta Burnett, Union Representative, for Professional and Technical Employees, Local 17.
Darryl D. Walker, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for the employer.
Maureen Colvin, Union Representative, for Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 11.
On January 24, 2013, Clark County (employer) and Professional and Technical Employees, Local 17 (PTE 17) jointly filed a unit clarification petition regarding an employee working in the employer’s Assessor’s Office. The employer seeks to move Tami McManus’s (McManus) position from the Appraisers and Other Professionals bargaining unit represented by PTE 17 to the Office and Professionals bargaining unit represented by Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 11 (OPEIU 11). From 2004-2012, McManus was in the Appraisal Systems Analyst job class and part of the Appraisers and Other Professionals bargaining unit. The employer recently reclassified McManus’s position to the Department Information Systems Coordinator (DISC) job class. McManus is the only DISC in PTE 17’s bargaining unit.
All other DISC employees in the Assessor’s Office are part of the Office and Professionals bargaining. OPEIU 11 was granted permission to intervene and participate in this proceeding. The employer also has DISC employees outside the Assessor’s Office who are represented by other unions and some who are not represented by a union. On May 14, 2013, Hearing Officer Stephen W. Irvin conducted a hearing to take evidence and testimony regarding the appropriateness of the petition. The parties filed briefs to complete the record.
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Has the reclassification of McManus’s job class created a change in circumstances that renders the petition for unit clarification timely under the standards announced in WAC 391-35-020(3) and (4)?
2. If the petition is timely, has McManus’s change in job class altered her current community of interest in such a manner that her position should be removed from the PTE 17 bargaining unit and placed in the OPEIU 11 unit with the other employees in the DISC job class in the Assessor’s Office?
The unit clarification petition is not timely under WAC 391-35-020(3) and (4). McManus’s job duties have not substantially changed since 2006. The employer’s recent reclassification of McManus to a new job class did not result in a meaningful change to her duties, skills, and working conditions that constitutes a change of circumstances warranting review of the position’s community of interest.
BACKGROUND
The employer is a county government that is headed by a county commission. Additionally, certain offices within the employer’s governance structure are headed by elected officials. The Assessor’s Office is one such office. The Assessors’ Office is responsible for setting the value of the real property within Clark County. Those assessments are in turn used to determine the tax assessment for each parcel of property. In 2010, Peter Van Nortwick was elected to the County Assessor position. He assumed office in January of 2011.
The employer has two bargaining units that include positions within the Assessor’s Office. One bargaining unit, the Appraiser’s and Other Professionals bargaining unit, is represented by the PTE 17. The other bargaining unit, the Office & Professionals bargaining unit, is represented by OPEIU 11. Both units are the result of a voluntary recognition between the unions and the employer. Neither unit was certified by this agency. Both units describe the unit by a list of each job class included in the bargaining unit.
Appraisal Systems Analyst Job Class
The Appraisal Systems Analyst job class has been included in the Appraisers and Other Professionals bargaining unit since 1989. According to the employer’s job description, the Appraisal Systems Analyst “creates and implements computer based residential and commercial appraisal processes and information.” Individuals in this job class are expected to:
coordinate and maintain centralized sales information to establish data for adjustments of property to market value for use of annual and physical valuation and expediting preparation of cases to the Board of Equalization, verifying sales to assessment ratios, and researching values of unique properties.
Appraisal Systems Analysts are responsible for translating appraisal information and the appraiser’s needs into computer terms. Employees in this job class are also expected to design and test computer programs, write computer reports for the appraiser’s use, and develop, compile, and analyze data in preparation for physical reevaluation, annual adjustment, and Board of Equalization appeals. Appraisal Systems Analysts are also expected to develop, design, review and test programs within the appraisal and assessment system to ensure the programs meet the needs of the Assessor’s Office.
McManus began her employment in the Assessor’s Office in 1993. She became an Appraisal Systems Analyst in 2004. McManus and her immediate predecessors in the Appraisal Systems Analyst position testified that the bulk of the work done by that position involves translating appraisal information and appraiser needs into computer terms within the employer’s mass property appraisal and assessment system.
The mass property appraisal and assessment system used by the Assessor’s Office when McManus was promoted to Appraisal Systems Analyst was the Computer Assessor Treasurer System (CATS). This system was used beginning in the early 1990’s. In 2006, the Assessor’s Office began transitioning to a new mass property appraisal and assessment system, Property Appraisal Collections System (PACS). The transition from CATS to PACS has occurred in three phases. Phase one began in 2006, phase two began in 2009, and phase three began in early 2013. The transition was not yet complete at the time of hearing.
When McManus promoted to the Appraisal Systems Analyst position, her duties also included field work as a certified residential appraiser. When the Assessor’s Office began the transition from CATS to PACS, McManus was the subject matter expert on residential appraisal for the transition team. McManus’s responsibilities with PACS increased to the point that she no longer worked in the field. At the time of the hearing, McManus was still working on the CATS to PACS transition project and testified that her job duties had not substantially changed since 2006.
DISC Job Class
Employees in the DISC job class are responsible for developing and managing “an assigned department’s use of specialized PC-resident computer systems.” Employees in the DISC job class are expected to design or customize software to fit the needs of the department, oversee the use and operation of the system, assist staff with the use of the system, and act as a liaison between the department’s staff and the Department of Information Technology. According to the employer’s job description, employees in the DISC job class should have a “thorough understanding of the department processes and workflow and comprehensive knowledge of the capability of the commonly-available computer software and departmentally developed-systems. . . . The [DISC] classification and role is distinguishable from other information systems professionals by the dual requirement for both technological expertise and a considerable background and knowledge of the department served.”
Reclassification of McManus’s Position to the DISC Job Class
In 2012, McManus initiated a reclassification study on her position. She initiated the study based upon the fact that she no longer did field appraisals due to the demands of her duties with the PACS system. By 2012, her duties also included increased administrative rights within PACS. In 2012, McManus also added some PACS system related duties concerning commercial appraisals when her commercial appraisal subject matter expert counterpart on the transition team returned to the field.
Senior Human Resources Representative Kathi Curtis completed the review of McManus’s classification. Curtis reviewed the job description for the Appraisal Systems Analyst, reviewed McManus’s job duties and interviewed McManus’s supervisor, Kathy Swanson. During the reclassification review, McManus detailed for Curtis categories of duties she performed when she first promoted to Appraisal System Analyst. These duties were:
• Develop, compile, and analyze data for physical reevaluation, annual adjustment, and Board of Equalization.
• Review real estate excise tax documents; apply Department of Revenue guidelines to determine the sale quality and input sales data into the sales analysis system.
• Research, monitor and evaluate trends in real estate markets, make projections on new constructions, price movements, and sales volumes.
• Determine and analyze applications of sales data for use in providing meaningful information to appraisers. Consult with appraisers about sales data, and prepare ratio report.
• Conduct presentations to Board of Equalization and other entities, provide technical assistance and training, write and prepare data processing user manuals.
McManus also identified two other categories of duties that she was performing at the time of the reclassification review. These duties included:
• Translate appraisal information and appraiser needs into computer terms, consult with data processing specialists in development of programs, review established and new programs to consider applicability to Assessor’s needs.
• Determines the user’s requirements and act as a liaison with IT.
McManus testified that she has been performing these two categories of duties since 2006. All the listed duties are within the job description of the Appraisal System Analyst job class. While the last two duties are within the Appraisal System Analyst job class, they also overlap with some of the job functions in the DISC II job class.
Curtis recommended that McManus be reclassified to the DISC II job classification based upon the fact that since 2006, McManus’s duties have centered around the department’s transition to PACS and that her primary duties are dedicated to providing technological support to that system consistent with the Assessor’s needs.
The DISC job classification is not one of the job classes listed as part of the Appraisers and Other Professionals bargaining unit. The DISC job classification is one of the positions identified as included in OPEIU 11’s Office and Professionals bargaining unit. Based on that fact, the employer believed that McManus’s position should be moved to the Office and Professionals bargaining unit. On December 20, 2012, Curtis and PTE 17 representative Roberta Burnett met to discuss McManus’ classification as well as the employer’s position that McManus’s position should be moved to the OPEIU 11 bargaining unit. Burnett disagreed that McManus’s position should be moved from the PTE 17 bargaining unit because McManus’s job duties had not changed since 2006 and those duties had been PTE 17 work for decades. McManus has been reclassified to a DISC II, but remains in the PTE 17 bargaining unit pending the outcome of this petition.
Reassignment of Management Duties
In 2012, Van Nortwick began the process of reorganizing the Assessor’s Office. At the time of the reorganization, McManus was supervised by Residential Manager Kathy Swanson, who also supervised property appraisers. Chief Deputy Assessor Linda Latto took over Swanson’s duties on an interim basis when Swanson left the job in December 2012. This reorganization did not radically alter the organizational structure of the office.
Ultimately, the employer envisions an assessment services team supervised by Shelley Price that would eventually consist of McManus and the Assessor’s Office’s two DISC I employees working together in the same office location. At the time of the hearing, this team was not operational, and McManus and the DISC I employees worked under different supervisors in different locations.
DISCUSSION
Applicable Legal Standard
Determining appropriate bargaining units is a function delegated by the Legislature to this agency. Bates Technical College, Decision 10991-A (PECB, 2012), citing City of Richland, Decision 279-A (PECB, 1978), aff’d, IAFF Local 1052 v. Public Employment Relations Commission, 29 Wn.App. 599 (1981), review denied, 96 Wn.2d 1004 (1981). When making unit determinations under Chapter 41.56 RCW, this agency’s goal is to group together employees who have sufficient similarities (community of interest) to indicate that they will be able to bargain effectively with their employer. Quincy School District, Decision 3962-A (PECB, 1993).
In making such determinations, this agency must consider: the duties, skills, and working conditions of the public employees; the history of collective bargaining by the public employees and their bargaining representatives; the extent of organization among the public employees; and the desire of the public employees. RCW 41.56.060. The criteria listed above is not applied on a strictly mathematical basis. King County, Decision 5910-A (PECB, 1997). Not all of the factors will arise in every case, and where they do exist, any one factor could be more important than another, depending on the factual situation. Kitsap Transit, Decision 10234-A (PECB, 2009).
Included in this agency’s authority to determine an appropriate bargaining unit is the power to, upon request, modify that unit through unit clarification proceedings. University of Washington, Decision 11590 (PSRA, 2012), aff’d, Decision 11590-A (PSRA, 2013); see also Pierce County, Decision 7018-A (PECB, 2001). Unit clarification cases are governed by the provisions of Chapter 391-35 WAC. The general purpose of the unit clarification process is to provide this agency as well as the parties to a collective bargaining relationship a mechanism to make changes to an appropriate bargaining unit based upon a change of circumstances. See, e.g., Toppenish School District, Decision 1143-A (PECB, 1981) (outlining the procedures to remove supervisors from existing bargaining units). Because unit clarifications alter the composition of a bargaining unit, WAC 391-35-020 governs the time frames during which unit clarifications may be filed so as to minimize the disruptions on the parties as well as the employees. That rule states, in part:
Time for filing petition — Limitations on results of proceedings.
TIMELINESS OF PETITION
(1) A unit clarification petition may be filed at any time, with regard to:
(a) Disputes concerning positions which have been newly created by an employer.
(b) Disputes concerning the allocation of employees or positions claimed by two or more bargaining units.
. . .
LIMITATIONS ON RESULTS OF PROCEEDINGS
(3) Employees or positions may be removed from an existing bargaining unit in a unit clarification proceeding filed within a reasonable time period after a change of circumstances altering the community of interest of the employees or positions.
(4) Employees or positions may be added to an existing bargaining unit in a unit clarification proceeding:
(a) Where a petition is filed within a reasonable time period after a change of circumstances altering the community of interest of the employees or positions; or
(b) Where the existing bargaining unit is the only appropriate unit for the employees or positions.
(5) Except as provided under subsection (4) of this section, a question concerning representation will exist under chapter 391-25 WAC, and an order clarifying bargaining unit will not be issued under chapter 391-35 WAC . . . .
(emphasis added).
The employer’s theory in this case is that its bargaining units are described by job class, and positions should be moved among bargaining units based upon that position’s classification. Since the DISC job class is listed in the recognition clause with OPEIU 11, the employer asserts that McManus’s position should be moved to that bargaining unit following her reclassification to the DISC II job class. Both OPEIU 11 and PTE 17 disagree. The provisions of WAC 391-35-020(3) and (4) apply and the appropriate inquiry is whether there has been a change in circumstances that altered the community of interest of the employees or position, and whether the petition was filed within a reasonable period of the time of that change in circumstances.
The change of circumstances that triggers a unit clarification petition under WAC 391-35-020(3) and (4) must be a meaningful change in an employee’s duties and responsibilities. University of Washington, Decision 10496-A (PSRA, 2011), citing City of Richland, Decision 279-A (PECB, 1978). A mere change in job titles is not necessarily a material change in working conditions that would qualify under Chapter 391-35 WAC to alter the composition of a bargaining unit through the unit clarification process. See University of Washington, Decision 10496-A. Other types of changes to the workplace environment, such as a reorganization of an employer’s workforce, are occurrences that could trigger a unit clarification petition. See Lewis County, Decision 6750 (PECB, 1999). Absent a recent change of circumstances, a unit clarification petition will be dismissed as untimely. University of Washington, Decision 11590.
WAC 391-35-020(3) and (4) do not set forth a particular timeframe in which the change must have occurred. Rather, the rules only state that the petition must be filed within a reasonable time period of the change. Timeliness is determined by the factual circumstances of each particular case. Reorganization and the reassignment of duties are events that do not occur overnight, and some deference must be granted to allow an employer to changes mid-stream to any reorganization that might be occurring. Furthermore, if employees are being reallocated to a new job classification based upon a recent change in duties, it may be necessary for the reallocation process to be completed so that a proper unit determination can be made. See University of Washington, Decision 10263 (PSRA, 2008). In sum, the defining event that makes a unit clarification petition timely is not the formal act of reallocating the job class; rather, the defining event is the material change to the duties and responsibilities of the employee that creates the need for the employer to review and possibly reallocate the employee to the new job class. University of Washington, Decision 11590.
Bargaining Unit Descriptions –
The Commission historically describes new bargaining units by the work that the employees in the unit perform, as opposed to job classes within that bargaining unit. See University of Washington, Decision 11590. Describing bargaining units by the work the employees perform ensures that the duty to bargain is enforced if an attempt is made to transfer the work performed by the employees outside of the bargaining unit. University of Washington, Decision 8392 (PSRA, 2004). The use of generic terms also avoids the need to revisit and revise the bargaining unit description should a job be changed or a new job title added within the occupational type.
On occasion, the Commission has defined a bargaining unit by job class. The purpose in doing so is to describe the units in a manner that provides the parties with a clear understanding of which employees are included in the bargaining unit. A “by job class” bargaining unit description is used in those instances where a more generic description is not feasible.
When a bargaining unit is described by job class, a title change or reallocation will not automatically result in an employee’s removal from a bargaining unit if that employee continues to perform the same work. University of Washington, Decision 11590. Even where the Commission defines a bargaining unit by job class, the work being performed by the employees in the bargaining unit becomes the historical work jurisdiction of the bargaining unit. Id. It is not uncommon for work to fit within one or more job classifications. Accordingly, when faced with a unit clarification petition based upon a change in job class, the Commission must examine whether there has been an actual recent material change to the work performed by the employees at issue.
Application of Standards
The question that must first be answered is whether there has been a change of circumstances that may have altered the community of interest of the employee or position. If there has been such a change of circumstances, then the question shifts to whether the filing of the instant petition occurred within a reasonable time of that change.
The employer asserts that the timeliness constraints of WAC 391-35-020(3) and (4) should not bar the results of the petition because the reorganization of the Assessor’s Office that began in February 2012 changed McManus’s job duties and amounted to a change of circumstances. The employer also claims that its petition was timely filed because it was filed shortly after the reclassification of McManus’s position. The employer further asserts that the position occupied by McManus should be moved to the OPEIU 11 bargaining unit because she shares a community of interest with the DISC employees in that unit. Since 1995, OPEIU 11 has represented the DISC employees in the Assessor’s Office. The employer’s envisioned assessment services team, which would include McManus and two employees in the DISC I job class, would have the same supervisor, follow the same operational procedures, and work with the same group of employees within the Assessor’s Office. To leave McManus’s position in the PTE 17 bargaining unit, the employer argues, would create a potential for work jurisdiction disputes based on the DISC employees working side by side in two different bargaining units.
PTE 17 asserts that the unit clarification petition is untimely because neither McManus’s reclassification nor the changes in the technology used in her position constitute a change of circumstances. PTE 17 further asserts that McManus has been performing essentially the same job duties since 2006, when she became part of the transition team that helped the employer move from the CATS to the PACS mass property appraisal and assessment system. OPEIU 11 supports PTE 17’s position in this matter, and asserts that the two unions have a long history of coexistence within the Assessor’s Office that has been free of work jurisdiction disputes. OPEIU 11 also claims that if the employer’s position prevails, all of its employees in the DISC job class should be represented by OPEIU 11.
Unit determination controversies are decided on a case-by-case basis, and on the facts as they currently exist when a petition is filed with the Commission. Okanogan County, Decision 6310 (PECB, 1998). An examination of the record leads to the conclusion that the employer’s change of McManus’s job classification was a change in name only and not a meaningful change in duties and responsibilities that would be considered a change of circumstances that triggers a unit clarification petition under WAC 391-35-020(3) and (4).
No Recent Change in Job Duties –
In this instance, the evidence demonstrates that McManus continues to perform the same work she has performed since 2006. Prior to reclassifying McManus, the employer reviewed McManus’s work in order to determine whether it should remain in the Appraisal Systems Analyst classification. Curtis met with McManus to review her job duties. McManus detailed five categories of duties that she performed when first promoted to the Appraisal Systems Analyst in 2004. McManus also identified two categories of duties that she has been performing since 2006:
Translate appraisal information and appraiser needs into computer terms, consult with data processing specialists in development of programs, review established and new programs to consider applicability to Assessor’s needs.
Determine the user’s requirements and acts as a liaison with IT.
All of these categories, including the two she identified as now performing are within the duties described in the Appraisal System Analyst job class. While these duties could also arguably be included in the DISC job class, the overlap between the job classes is irrelevant to this analysis. The duties and work performed by McManus constitute work that belongs to the PTE 17 bargaining unit by virtue of the applicable recognition clause. McManus testified that she has been performing these two duties since 2006 and, absent any evidence that the assignment of new duties to McManus was temporary, the newly assigned duties became PTE 17 work when that work was permanently assigned. See City of Snoqualmie, Decision 9892-A (PECB, 2009).
The major change as testified to by McManus is that she no longer actually goes into the field to perform appraisals. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that field appraisals were a major component of the work performed by McManus. The commercial appraisal duties that McManus picked up when her counterpart left the transition team are similar to her existing residential duties, fall within the scope of her PACS system, and do not constitute a substantial change in duties.
Testimony by McManus and Latto also demonstrated that McManus, despite her reclassification to the DISC II job class, continues to spend the vast majority of her work hours performing the same duties she performed as an Appraisal Systems Analyst in 2006. Latto specifically testified that McManus has been working exclusively on the PACS transition since 2006. McManus also stated that she has been performing the same duties since 2006.
The recent reclassification of McManus from the Appraisal Systems Analyst to the DISC II job class was not accompanied by any change of duties. She continues to perform work that historically belongs to PTE 17 by virtue of the recognition clause in the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and OPEIU 11. Although McManus gained technical knowledge and skills while learning how to work with various computer software programs within the PACS system, acquiring additional training to perform the same work does not equate to a change of circumstances that would bring about a unit clarification.
The instant case is analogous to University of Washington, Decision 11590-A. In that case, the employer proposed to remove 33 specimen processing employees at Harborview Medical Center from one bargaining unit, reallocate them to a different job class, and place them in a new bargaining unit where the employer contended the employees shared a greater community of interest. The employer’s petition was found to be untimely because the reallocation of the employees to a new job class was not accompanied by a change to the duties, responsibilities, skills, or working conditions that altered the employees’ community of interest.
No Recent Change in Organizational Structure –
The employer’s reorganization of the Assessor’s Office, which began in February 2012, included elimination of an office manager position and consolidation of other jobs. PACS project manager Becky Hiatt received new assignments as part of the reorganization, and McManus gained increased administrative rights within the computer system when McManus assumed some of Hiatt’s PACS duties. The record indicates that McManus’s job duties after the reorganization revolved around the PACS system, just as they did before.
As it pertains to McManus’s position, the key piece of the reorganization had not occurred at the time of hearing. The employer’s witnesses testified that the employer planned to create an assessment services team, which would entail McManus and the two DISC I employees working together in one location under program manager Shelley Price. In its post-hearing brief, the employer went to great lengths to detail the potential work jurisdiction issues that could arise from having McManus in the PTE 17 bargaining unit working alongside and sharing projects with DISC I employees who are members of the OPEIU 11 bargaining unit in the employer’s envisioned assessment services team. This does not constitute a change of circumstances, as no such team existed when the petition was filed with the Commission, and the employer’s witnesses at hearing were unable to pinpoint when this team would become an operational reality.
In the cases where the petitions were found to be timely, actual changes occurred that materially affected the community of interest. For example, in University of Washington, Decision 11833 (PSRA, 2013), the employer consolidated its patient access services functions for all of the UW Medicine facilities into a centralized Contact Center. The result of this reorganization not only altered the reporting structure of the employees, but also expanded the scope of their duties in such a manner that the employees’ community of interest was inextricably altered and the affected employees were removed from their existing bargaining units. Therefore, the petition was found to be timely because the reorganization that triggered review of the affected employees’ community of interest had already occurred. Without a material change that arguably alters the community of interest of the employee or employees, it cannot be claimed that there has been a change to the employees’ community of interest. The Commission has held that when determining bargaining units or unit placement, it will not consider speculation, but only duties that are actually performed. City of Redmond, Decision 7814-B (PECB, 2004).
Conclusion
Because no recent change of circumstances has occurred that warrants review of McManus’s current community of interest, the petition must be dismissed. The employer is not barred from filing a new clarification petition should there be a material change of circumstances in the future.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Clark County is a public employer within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(12).
2. Professional and Technical Employees, Local 17 (PTE 17) is a bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(2).
3. Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 11 (OPEIU 11) is a bargaining representative within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(2).
4. The employer has two bargaining units that include positions within the Assessor’s Office. One bargaining unit, the Appraisers and Other Professionals bargaining unit, is represented by the PTE 17. The other bargaining unit, the Office and Professionals bargaining unit, is represented by OPEIU 11.
5. Since 1989, the Appraisal Systems Analyst job classification has been part of the Appraisers and Other Professionals bargaining unit represented by PTE 17. Since 1995, the DISC job classification in the Assessor’s Office has been part of a bargaining unit represented by OPEIU 11.
6. Employees in the Appraisal Systems Analyst job class create and implement computer based residential and commercial appraisal processes and information. Incumbents within this class coordinate and maintain centralized sales information to establish data for adjustments of property to market value for use of annual and physical valuation and expediting preparation of cases to the Board of Equalization, verifying sales to assessment ratios, and researching values of unique properties.
7. Employees in the DISC job class are responsible for developing and managing “an assigned department’s use of specialized PC-resident computer systems.” Employees in the DISC job class are expected to design or customize software to fit the needs of the department, oversee the use and operation of the system, assist staff with the use of the system, and act as a liaison between the department’s staff and the Department of Information Technology.
8. In 2006, the Assessor’s Office began transitioning to a new mass property appraisal and assessment system, Property Appraisal Collections System (PACS). The transition from CATS to PACS has occurred in three phases. Phase one began in 2006, phase two began in 2009, and phase three began in early 2013 and was not yet complete at the time of hearing.
9. Tami McManus began her employment in the Assessor’s Office in 1993. She became an Appraisal Systems Analyst in 2004. McManus and her immediate predecessors in the Appraisal Systems Analyst position testified that the bulk of the work done by that position involves translating appraisal information and appraiser needs into computer terms within the employer’s mass property appraisal and assessment system.
10. When McManus promoted to the Appraisal Systems Analyst position, her duties also included field work as a certified residential appraiser. When the Assessor’s Office began the transition from CATS to PACS in 2006, McManus was the subject matter expert on residential appraisal for the transition team. McManus’s responsibilities with PACS increased to the point that she no longer worked in the field. At the time of the hearing, McManus was still working on the CATS to PACS transition project.
11. Since 2006, McManus’s duties have included translating appraisal information and appraiser needs into computer terms, consulting with data processing specialists in development of programs, reviews established and new programs to consider applicability to Assessor’s needs. Her duties also include determining the user’s requirements and acting as a liaison with the Department of Information Technology, or doing that work herself.
12. In 2012, McManus initiated a reclassification study on her position. She initiated the study based upon the fact that she no longer did field appraisals because of the demands of her duties with the PACS system. By 2012, her duties also included increased administrative rights within PACS.
13. Senior Human Resources Representative Kathi Curtis completed the review of McManus’s classification. Curtis reviewed the job description for the Appraisal Systems Analyst, reviewed McManus’s job duties and recommended that McManus be reclassified to the DISC II job classification based upon the fact that since 2006, McManus’s duties have centered around the department’s transition to PACS and that her primary duties are dedicated to providing technological support to that system consistent with the Assessor’s needs. Despite her reclassification to the DISC II job class, McManus continues to spend the vast majority of her work hours performing the same duties she performed as an Appraisal Systems Analyst in 2006.
14. On December 20, 2012, Curtis and PTE 17 representative Roberta Burnett met to discuss McManus’s classification as well as the employer’s position that McManus’s position should be moved to the OPEIU Local 11 bargaining unit. Burnett disagreed that McManus’s position should be moved from the PTE 17 bargaining unit because McManus’s job duties had not changed since 2006 and those duties had been PTE 17 work for decades.
15. Van Nortwick began the process of reorganizing the Assessor’s Office in 2012. At the time of the reorganization, McManus was supervised by Residential Manager Kathy Swanson, who also supervised property appraisers. Chief Deputy Assessor Linda Latto took over Swanson’s duties on an interim basis when Swanson left the job in December 2012. This reorganization did not radically alter the organizational structure of the office.
16. As part of its reorganization, the employer envisions an assessment services team supervised by Shelley Price that would eventually consist of McManus and the Assessor’s Office’s two DISC I employees working together in the same office location. At the time of the hearing, this team was not operational, and McManus and the DISC I employees worked under different supervisors in different locations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Chapter 41.56 RCW and Chapter 391-35 WAC.
2. Based upon Findings of Fact 9 through 17, the unit clarification petition must be dismissed as untimely under WAC 391-35-020(3) and (4).
ORDER
The petition filed in the above-entitled action is hereby DISMISSED.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 4th day of October, 2013.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
MICHAEL P. SELLARS, Executive Director
This order will be the final order of the
agency unless a notice of appeal is filed
with the Commission under WAC 391-35-210.