State – Enterprise Services, Decision 11665-B (PSRA, 2013)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
In the matter of the petitions of:
state – enterprise services (facilities division)
and
washington federation of state employees
For clarification of an existing bargaining unit.
|
CASE 24598-C-12-1484 DECISION 11665-B - PSRA
CASE 24629-C-12-1494 DECISION 11669-B - PSRA
CASE 24594-C-12-1480 DECISION 11667-B - PSRA
CASE 24599-C-12-1485 DECISION 11668-B - PSRA
CASE 24635-C-12-1499 DECISION 11666-B - PSRA
DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION |
|
|
|
Younglove & Coker, P.L.L.C., by Edward Earl Younglove III, Attorney at Law, for the union.
Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, by Kara A. Larsen, Senior Counsel, for the employer.
On August 15, 2013, the Commission issued State – Enterprise Services (Facilities Division), Decision 11665-A (PSRA, 2013). On August 26, 2013, the employer filed a motion for reconsideration. The employer requested the Commission to remand the case for a hearing on the supervisory status of two employees.
The Hearing Officer questioned employee Nick Cockrell (Cockrell) about the time spent evaluating employees, the time spent directing employees, and the authority to hire, fire, or discipline.[1] The Hearing Officer questioned Cockrell about John Wiggins’ (Wiggins) supervisory duties.[2] Additionally, Thomas Henderson testified about Wiggins’ duties.[3]
If an issue arises in a hearing that a party did not anticipate, it is incumbent on the party to address the issue when it arises. When a hearing officer questions witnesses about a subject a party did not anticipate to be an issue in a proceeding, the party should raise the issue during the hearing. In this case, the parties chose not to ask additional questions about the supervisory indicia or raise on the record the supervisory issue with the hearing officer.
The parties to a unit clarification proceeding have an obligation to present adequate evidence for a determination to be made. While the record may not have been as complete as it could have been, enough evidence was elicited to make a determination about the employees’ supervisory status. We affirmed the determination based on that evidence.
The purpose of a unit clarification proceeding is to ensure that employees are properly placed in bargaining units. Nonetheless, the bargaining unit issues posed by the movement and consolidation of agencies to the Department of Enterprise Services were many. Therefore, the cases are remanded for the limited purpose of determining whether Cockrell and Wiggins are supervisors and determining which, if any, bargaining units they should be placed in.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The cases are remanded to the Representation Case Administrator for a hearing as to whether Nick Cockrell and John Wiggins are supervisors.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 12th day of September, 2013.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
MARILYN GLENN SAYAN, Chairperson
PAMELA G. BRADBURN, Commissioner
THOMAS W. McLANE, Commissioner