Central Washington University, Decision 12935 (PSRA, 2018)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

 

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

In the matter of the petition of:   washington federation of state employees   Involving certain employees of:   central washington university

CASE 129831-E-17   DECISION 12935 - PSRA     DIRECTION OF ELECTION

 

 

Edward Earl Younglove III, Attorney at Law, Younglove & Coker, P.L.L.C., for the Washington Federation of State Employees.

 

Laura L. Wulf, Attorney General Robert W. Ferguson, for Central Washington University.

 

 

The Washington Federation of State Employees (union) seeks to add employees at Central Washington University (employer) to an existing bargaining unit of custodial, trades, food services, grounds, plant maintenance, and security employees.  Specifically, the union seeks to represent the checkstand operators in the employer’s Dining Services Department and the engineering assistants, program coordinators, forms and records analyst, cartographer, and procurement & supply specialists in the Facilities Management Department.

 

Representation Administrator Dario de la Rosa conducted an investigation of the union’s petition.  During the investigation, the parties agreed that the petitioned-for checkstand operators could appropriately be included in the existing bargaining unit.^[1]  The employer opposed adding the petitioned-for Facilities Management Department employees to the bargaining unit, asserting that they do not share a community of interest with the employees in the unit.  The parties agreed to have this matter decided on stipulated facts and documentary evidence in lieu of proceeding to hearing.  The parties opted not to file written arguments.

 

Adding the petitioned-for Facilities Management Department employees to the existing bargaining unit is appropriate because it would result in vertical representation within the department.  This matter is remanded to Representation Administrator de la Rosa for further processing consistent with this decision.

BACKGROUND

The employer is a four-year university located in Ellensburg, Washington.  The employer’s Operations Division is responsible for maintaining and enhancing the physical and technological infrastructure of the employer’s campus.  The division offers police services, parking services, environmental health and safety services, facilities management services, information services, and information security.

 

The Operations Division includes the Facilities Management Department, which is responsible for the maintenance of the employer’s buildings, facilities, and grounds.  The department also oversees construction projects and plans future campus improvements.  The Facilities Management Department is headed by Interim Associate Vice President Shane Scott.

 

The existing bargaining unit comprises “[a]ll full-time and regular part-time non‑supervisory custodial, trades, food services, grounds, plant maintenance and security employees, excluding supervisors and all other employees.”  Central Washington University, Decision 10375 (PSRA, 2009).  The bargaining unit includes employees in the Facilities Management Department and all of the nonsupervisory employees in the department’s Grounds, Custodial Services Operations – Academic, and Custodial Services Operations – Auxiliary Sections.  The bargaining unit also includes most of the nonsupervisory employees in the Planned & Preventative Maintenance, Administrative Services, and Non-Maintenance Services Sections of the Facilities Management Department.  Approximately 182 employees are currently included in the bargaining unit.

 

The Planned & Preventative Maintenance Section of the Facilities Management Department comprises approximately 45 employees in 10 different work groups.  The Planned & Preventative Maintenance Section is structured as follows:

Eight of the work groups—Mechanical/Weld, Electrical, Area, Boiler, Environmental Management Control System, Floor, Paint, and Abatement—are wholly represented by the union.  The two‑person Lock Shop work group includes one employee who has historically been included in the union’s bargaining unit.  The other position, a program coordinator, is one of the petitioned‑for employees.  The Maps work group contains one employee in the engineering assistant 1 job class, one employee in the engineering assistant 2 job class, and one employee in the cartographer job class.  These three employees are not currently represented but are on the list of petitioned‑for employees.

 

The Administrative Services Section of the Facilities Management Department includes eight employees; three of those employees are currently represented by the union and four are on the list of petitioned-for employees.  The represented positions include one employee in the truck driver 2 job class and two employees in the equipment technician 3 and 4 job classes.  The Administrative Services Section is structured as follows:

The Non-Maintenance Services Section of the Facilities Management Department comprises four employees.  Three of those employees are in the maintenance mechanic 2 job class and are included in the bargaining unit; one employee is in the construction project coordinator 2 job class and is on the list of petitioned-for employees.^[2]  The Non-Maintenance Services Section is structured as follows:

The union also seeks to include the nonsupervisory program coordinator that reports to the program support supervisor 2 in the Facilities Management Department.

DISCUSSION

Applicable Legal Standards

The determination of appropriate bargaining units is a function delegated to this agency by the Legislature.  RCW 41.80.070; Central Washington University, Decision 10215-B (PSRA, 2010).  The goal in making unit determinations 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).

 

RCW 41.80.070(1) provides that this agency, in examining whether there is a community of interest, shall consider “[t]he duties, skills, and working conditions of the employees; the history of collective bargaining; the extent of organization among the employees; the desires of the employees; and the avoidance of excessive fragmentation.”  The criteria are 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 facts.  Renton School District, Decision 379‑A (EDUC, 1978), aff’d, Renton Education Association v. Public Employment Relations Commission, 101 Wn.2d 435 (1984).

 

This agency’s role is to determine whether there is a community of interest, not the best community of interest.  Consequently, the fact that other groupings of employees may also be appropriate, or even more appropriate, does not render the proposed configuration inappropriate.  State – Secretary of State, Decision 12442 (PSRA, 2015), citing Snohomish County, Decision 12071 (PECB, 2014), and City of Winslow, Decision 3520-A (PECB, 1990).

 

A bargaining unit that constitutes the entirety of a vertical structure of an employer’s workforce, such as a department or division, is generally considered an appropriate unit.  Additionally, bargaining units that encompass all employees in a single job class of an employer’s workforce are horizontally structured and are generally considered appropriate.  See University of Washington, Decision 8392 (PSRA, 2004).  While vertical or horizontal bargaining unit configurations are preferable, there is no absolute requirement that employees be organized in these fashions.  See State – Attorney General, Decision 9951-A (PSRA, 2009).  Provided justification under the unit determination criteria exists, other unit configurations are possible.

Application of Standards

The petitioned-for Facilities Management Department employees can appropriately be included in the existing bargaining unit based upon the extent of organization in the employer’s workforce and avoidance of fragmentation.  The duties, skills, and working conditions of the petitioned-for employees also support the conclusion that they share a community of interest with the employees in the existing bargaining unit.

 

An analysis of the extent of organization among employees involves comparing the petitioned-for employees with the employer’s overall workforce.  Washington State University, Decision 10115 (PSRA, 2008).  The application of this factor is designed to ensure that an employee or group of employees is not stranded in a unit too small to effectively exercise its right to collectively bargain.  Id.  The extent of organization in the Facilities Management Department and its sections demonstrates a preference for vertical bargaining unit configurations.  For example, the union’s existing bargaining unit includes all of the nonsupervisory employees in the Grounds, Custodial Services Operations – Academic, and Custodial Services Operations – Auxiliary Sections of the department.

 

Other bargaining units in the employer’s workforce are also structured vertically.  In 2008, this agency certified a bargaining unit that was defined by job class and department.  Central Washington University, Decision 9963 (PSRA, 2008).  Over time, the duties of some of the positions in the bargaining unit changed, and the employer reclassified those positions to job titles not included in the bargaining unit description.  These changes resulted in conflicts between the employer and bargaining agent over which positions were included in the bargaining unit.  Central Washington University, Decision 10215-B.  The parties requested that the bargaining unit be modified to a vertical structure defined by job function as opposed to job title.  Id.

 

Here, adding the petitioned-for Facilities Management Department employees to the existing bargaining unit will complete the vertical structures for the Planned & Preventative Maintenance, Administrative Services, and Non-Maintenance Services Sections.  Adding the petitioned-for employees to the existing bargaining unit will also prevent the possibility of fragmentation.  As a result of the modification that occurred through Central Washington University, Decision 10215‑B, several of the petitioned-for employees in the instant case were removed from the bargaining unit certified in Central Washington University, Decision 9963.^[3]  The bargaining unit configurations that these positions could be included in are now limited.  Requiring these positions to organize separately would result in a proliferation of bargaining units in the employer’s workforce and would fragment the Facilities Management Department.

 

Finally, the duties, skills, and working conditions of the petitioned-for employees also support a finding that those positions could appropriately be included in the bargaining unit.  The employees in the Facilities Management Department all work toward the common goal of maintaining and improving the employer’s buildings, facilities, and grounds.  The petitioned-for employees’ duties fall squarely within the department’s overall mission.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  Central Washington University (employer) is an institution of higher education within the meaning of RCW 41.80.005(10).

2.                  The Washington Federation of State Employees (union) is an employee organization within the meaning of RCW 41.80.005(7).

3.                  The union represents a bargaining unit of custodial, trades, food services, grounds, plant maintenance, and security employees.

4.                  The union seeks to represent the checkstand operators in the employer’s Dining Services Department and the engineering assistants, program coordinators, forms and records analyst, cartographer, and procurement & supply specialists in the Facilities Management Department.

5.                  The union’s bargaining unit includes some of the employees in the employer’s Dining Services Department.  The union’s bargaining unit also includes some of the employees in the Facilities Management Department.

6.                  The employer’s Operations Division is responsible for maintaining and enhancing the physical and technological infrastructure of the employer’s campus.  The Operations Division includes the Facilities Management Department, which is responsible for the maintenance of the employer’s buildings, facilities, and grounds.  The department also oversees construction projects and plans future campus improvements.

7.                  The Planned & Preventative Maintenance Section of the Facilities Management Department comprises approximately 45 employees in 10 different work groups.  Eight of the work groups—Mechanical/Weld, Electrical, Area, Boiler, Environmental Management Control System, Floor, Paint, and Abatement—are wholly represented by the union.  The two person Lock Shop work group includes one employee who has historically been included in the union’s bargaining unit.  The other position, a program coordinator, is one of the petitioned-for employees.  The Maps work group contains one employee in the engineering assistant 1 job class, one employee in the engineering assistant 2 job class, and one employee in the cartographer job class.  These three employees are not currently represented but are on the list of petitioned-for employees.

8.                  The Administrative Services Section of the Facilities Management Department includes eight employees; three of those employees are currently represented by the union and four are on the list of petitioned-for employees.  The represented positions include one employee in the truck driver 2 job class and two employees in the equipment technician 3 and 4 job classes.

9.                  The Non-Maintenance Services Section of the Facilities Management Department comprises four employees.  Three of those employees are in the maintenance mechanic 2 job class and are included in the bargaining unit; one employee is in the construction project coordinator 2 job class and is on the list of petitioned-for employees.

10.              The employees in the Facilities Management Department all work toward the common goal of maintaining and improving the employer’s buildings, facilities, and grounds.

11.              The employer agrees that the petitioned-for checkstand operators in the employer’s Dining Services Department can appropriately be included in the bargaining unit described in finding of fact 3.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.         The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Chapter 41.80 RCW and Chapter 391-25 WAC.

2.         Based upon findings of fact 4 through 11, adding the checkstand operators in the employer’s Dining Services Department and the engineering assistants, program coordinators, forms and records analyst, cartographer, and procurement & supply specialists in the Facilities Management Department to the union’s existing bargaining unit is appropriate under RCW 41.80.070.

ORDER

This matter is remanded to Representation Administrator Dario de la Rosa for further processing consistent with this decision.

 

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  7th  day of November, 2018.

 

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

 

 

 

MICHAEL P. SELLARS, Executive Director

 

This order may be appealed by filing

timely objections with the Commission

under WAC 391-25-590.