Central Washington University, Decision 12588-A (PSRA, 2016)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
washington Federation of state employees,
Complainant,
vs.
central washington university,
Respondent.
|
CASE 127564-U-15
DECISION 12588-A - PSRA
DECISION OF COMMISSION
|
Edward Earl Younglove III, Attorney at Law, Younglove & Coker, P.L.L.C., for the Washington Federation of State Employees.
Donna J. Stambaugh, Senior Counsel, Attorney General Robert W. Ferguson, for Central Washington University.
The Washington Federation of State Employees (union) filed an unfair labor practice complaint alleging that Central Washington University (employer) refused to bargain by contracting out bargaining unit work. Examiner Kristi Aravena conducted a hearing. At the hearing, the union moved to amend its complaint to conform to the evidence that the employer breached its good faith bargaining obligation when it did not respond to the union’s May 18, 2015, e-mail.
After the hearing, the Examiner concluded that the union waived by inaction its right to bargain over the employer’s decision to contract out bargaining unit work. Central Washington University, Decision 12588 (PSRA, 2016). The Examiner did not rule on the union’s motion. The union appealed the Examiner’s conclusion that the union waived its right to bargain and the Examiner’s failure to rule on the motion.
The Commission has reviewed the evidentiary record, the decision, and the parties’ briefs. We remand the case to the Examiner to rule on whether the union’s motion to amend its complaint was timely and, if so, to rule on the merits of the motion. The Examiner will use the existing evidentiary record, including all briefs filed in the case. The Examiner’s decision on the union’s motion will be subject to appeal consistent with WAC 391-45-350.
We will reserve our determination on the union’s appeal of the Examiner’s conclusion that the union waived its right to bargain over the employer’s decision to contract out bargaining unit work until after the Examiner issues her decision on remand. If either party appeals the Examiner’s decision on remand, we will hear both appeals simultaneously without taking additional argument on the issues already appealed.
ORDER
We REMAND the case to the Examiner with instructions to rule on whether the union’s motion to amend its complaint was timely and, if so, to rule on the merits of the motion.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 15th day of September, 2016.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
MARILYN GLENN SAYAN, Chairperson
MARK E. BRENNAN, Commissioner